Keatsian Nightingale Defended Diversity of Johannine Corpus

Biased Bart Ehrman Hits Irony Overload (ft. Tim McGrew)
Testify, 15 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfH0fO8Vzmg

Initial comment:

Is this mostly about the Gospel of St. John and how the narrator (but mostly not Jesus) uses the word "Jews"?

In 90, on Patmos, the Jewish heritage Christian community that heard St. John got a message from Christ that their enemies in the ethnic Jewish community (at least locally) had gone so far that in the eyes of The King of the Jews Himself, they were not Jews.

In c. 100, in the Gospel, he is himself telling them by his word choice, that for social purposes, they nevertheless had to call their enemies "Jews" ...

I suppose getting harrassed by people first protecting you against the now Roman persecution, then asking if you were serious about being Christian, then delivering you to the Romans to get persecuted and eaten by lions would tend to foster a somewhat orrery "outgroup bias" against those Jews who were doing that, and who since Jamnia were claiming the name "Jews" for themselves.

Dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

11:32 The ones mocking Jesus, btw, I think the order is Matthew (30's / 40's), Mark and Luke (50's or 60's), John (c. 100), appear only in Matthew and Mark ...

I think the real point is, the audience is getting less Jewish, therefore less likely to pick up on the first words of Psalm 21 (22 in some Bibles).

Beserk Fan

@Bones18

I doubt John is that late.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He is, @Bones18 , since his Gospel is post-Patmos.

Smidlee

@smidlee7747

@hglundahl There is some doubts since John didn't mention the destruction of the temple in his gospel. The gospel writers were quick to point out Jesus fulfilling prophecy yet didn't mention the destruction of the temple as one of them. We know the early church did indeed pointed this out as fulfilled exactly as Jesus said it would.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, @smidlee7747 , there is a difference of Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy and prophecies of Jesus being fulfilled.

The destruction of the temple was obvious, didn't need pointing out in a Gospel. The OT fulfilments are on some level less obvious, since Jews go on missing them up to this day. That's why they were specifically pointed out, including rules about the paschal lamb being prophetic of the Redeemer and Eucharistic Bread (why His bones were not broken, specifically Gospel of John).

Keatsian Nightingale

@keatsiannightingale9256

@hglundahl The Patristic testimony is not clear on that point, I don’t think. By all accounts John survived Patmos and even did a little more preaching and ministering in the times of Nerva, but he probably died before Trajan took the throne.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, but @keatsiannightingale9256 ... either way it seems he wrote the Gospel after Patmos.

I'm referring to the Acta Sancti Iohannis which were followed in Ælfric's sermon on him.

It makes sense logically that he first reassures Christians of Jewish origin, that in the views of the King of the Jews they are the real Jews, and only then trains them to use the word Jews about the sect usurping it at Jamnia, so, I'd go with the Acta, even if I don't trust its identification of the Gospeller with the Son of Zebedee, and even if other Fathers disagree.

Keatsian Nightingale

@hglundahl I’m not terribly persuaded John put the pen to paper for the gospel, but another associate. The gospel is still John’s just not by his hand. Or maybe he wrote Revelation himself and a scribe helped with the gospel. The original Greek of the two documents are incredibly different.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The content is incredibly different.

The Apocalypse is :

• visions of heaven and hell
• visions of miseries and persecutions on earth

The Gospel is :

• miracles and speeches set in everyday situations
• some philosophy about what Jesus is at the start
• theology about how He fulfils OT prophecy (including kashrut, as those about not breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb)

Authors these days write incredibly different when writing on incredibly different topics, right?

Keatsian Nightingale

@hglundahl Not exactly. I am not troubled by the idea that the apostle on the island, having no company and no assistant, was made able to write the Apocalypse down. It bears worthy note that the style is very vulgar, the work of one likely not formally trained in Greek. This fits John son of Zebedee well. The gospel is my much more ornate in its Greek, as are the letters. I think the best explanation is that an associate of the apostle wrote the gospel and assisted with the letters based on the apostle’s real testimony to what he saw and wanted to say, but John the apostle actually penned the Apocalypse, as the early church unanimously assigns that text to his hand. If you ever get a chance to pick up or acquire a Greek NT to compare the language and overall writing style, I think you will see what I mean. You can probably find one version online even.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"not formally trained in Greek."

Sure of that? More like very formally trained in the tradition of Ezechiel and Daniel, I'd say?

"The gospel is my much more ornate in its Greek"

Or more Greek? Less Hebrew?

Would fit the agenda of acclimating an audience to not flaunting Hebrew origins all the time.

"John the apostle actually penned the Apocalypse, as the early church unanimously assigns that text to his hand."

Not really, since it was one of the books latest to get universal acceptance.

"a Greek NT to compare the language and overall writing style, I think you will see what I mean."

My Greek grammar is actually not brushed up enough to note things like more use of certain tenses ... though perhaps conditionals are less likely to appear in an Apocalyptic vision than in Jesus saying "if you believed Moses" ...

Would you, no doubt better versed as of lately in Greek than I, give two examples from each book, same type of idea expressed in a more Greek and a less Greek way?

Keatsian Nightingale

@hglundahl Why would we suppose either Ezekiel or Daniel knew Greek? I am not sure what you meant by that. Yes, I am sure John did not receive formal Greek training. While it is by no means improbable he could have acquired Greek orally and a little in writing, I doubt he ever would have been proficient in its written use.

In the time of Christ and the apostles it would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew, that was the primary tongue of Israel at the time. The preponderance of evidence shows Jesus spoke Aramaic throughout his life, not Hebrew or Greek. I don’t think flaunting his Semitic origins is something he cared about at all, not unlike Paul who mentions his heritage in no less than three of his epistles and multiple speeches in Acts.

Yes, Revelation was one of the last to gain universal acceptance (I can see why) but the earliest written testimonies we have all point to John the Apostle being the actual author (Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria).

I am just starting to formally learn Koine Greek myself at seminary, but I’ve done enough perusing of my Greek NT to see the noticeably different style and language of the gospel of John and the Apocalypse. It is as noticeably different a style as the gospels of Mark and Luke. Like Mark, the author of the Apocalypse uses “Kai” at the beginning of a great number of his sentences at a much greater proportion and frequency than in John. Because both writers are writing narratives, it would follow that their narration style would be reflected in both texts about the same. There is no distinctively Johannine element in Revelation, no reflection of any essential contents or themes reflected in the Gospel or epistles. If anything, the elements in the Apocalypseare decidedly synoptic, as the “whoever has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” and the “I will confess his name before my Father and His angels”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@keatsiannightingale9256 "Why would we suppose either Ezekiel or Daniel knew Greek?"

I'm not presuming that. I am presuming that the Hebrew syntax in these books has influenced St. John.

"Yes, I am sure John did not receive formal Greek training. While it is by no means improbable he could have acquired Greek orally and a little in writing, I doubt he ever would have been proficient in its written use."

Over decades living among Greek speakers? + doesn't work very well if he was a Cohen, who would have known Greek from his training (you know "know your enemy" + clashes in the Maccabaean times).

"In the time of Christ and the apostles it would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew, that was the primary tongue of Israel at the time. The preponderance of evidence shows Jesus spoke Aramaic throughout his life, not Hebrew or Greek."

Jesus knowing also Hebrew: he read a prophecy in a synaogue, and not one of the books written in Aramaic (though Daniel precisely is one such book).

Jesus knowing also either Greek or Latin or both: he grew up in Galilee (a k a Galilee of the Gentiles to some), and St. Joseph worked on a new building project near Nazareth / in Nazareth. And he communicated fluently with a Roman officer, who is not quite likely to have taken the trouble to learn Aramaic. Obviously the Centurion who hit His side with the lance, St. Longinus, was not making his remark in Aramaic, so the Apostle who heard him would have known Latin or more probably Greek (a Classic author, also called Longinos, wrote in Greek).

My point is, the exotic parts, to a native Greek ear, in the Apocalypse, are not ineptitude in Greek, but straight copying of the language of Daniel and Ezechiel.

I asked you to give two sentences of semantically parallel content between the Gospel and the Apocalypse to show where the Greek of the Gospel is more ornate. You didn't comply, you are simply asking me to rely on a set of experts without any other evidence than their authority.

"Like Mark, the author of the Apocalypse uses “Kai” at the beginning of a great number of his sentences at a much greater proportion and frequency than in John."

In Mark, that would illustrate St. Peter was using a very Semitic Greek, since Hebrew has lots of sentences in "ve" ... the same background in the Apocalypse would indicate St. John was consciously calquing Hebrew content, or perhaps he received the vision in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated it to Greek, word for word.

"Because both writers are writing narratives, it would follow that their narration style would be reflected in both texts about the same."

Is describing a vision the same thing as writing a narrative set in 1st C AD fisherman and Jerusalem everyday Palestine?

"There is no distinctively Johannine element in Revelation, no reflection of any essential contents or themes reflected in the Gospel or epistles. If anything, the elements in the Apocalypseare decidedly synoptic"

Oh, thematic correspondences or lack of such are nearly no clue at all to common or diverse authorship. At best, a commonality of themes can confirm common authorship if otherwise known or suspected, but it can not on its own sufficiently point to such, and lack of it definitely cannot point to diversity of authorship.

If St. John had already covered lost of Synoptic themes in the Apocalypse, as you say, it could be a reason to leave them out in his Gospel, which is written later.

Keatsian Nightingale

@hglundahl If you are suggesting that Jesus knew Latin, there’s not much for me to work with. You are suggestible to many implausibilities if that’s the case. The whole story of St. Loginus is Medieval fiction and not rooted in history. If you put that on par with top-notch critical scholarship, you are bound to make many mistakes in your analysis. The evidence we have only has Jesus speaking Aramaic explicitly. Perhaps we could include some limited Greek. But even in the case of the Roman centurion of Matthew 8 and Luke 7, there’s no reason one of whom it was said “He loves our nation” would and could not have learned the local dialect. The idea that Jesus knew Latin is the stuff of factionalized versions of Jesus’ life from the 19th century. I’ve read enough critical notes of Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita to pick up at least this. So I ask: what actual evidence, if any, supports the notion that Jesus spoke any Latin or Greek?

I didn’t provide Greek text because it is simply not convenient to do so in this format, as you must obviously know. However, your contention that narrative in a vision versus in a true account must differ stylistically simply does not stack up. Obviously there’s nothing inherent in the language of Greek or Hebrew that would incline an author to just use the word “and” at the beginning of sentences in a vision narrative to a greater degree than in a normal narrative. The evidence of this is simply a basic comparison of the narrative language of Mark versus that of Matthew, another author of the NT who allegedly first wrote his gospel in Hebrew, although no definite evidence shows this is so. Additionally, is there any evidence that John is emulating the style of Greek Ezekiel or Greek Daniel?

And no, you are dead wrong about thematic and lingual correspondence. Even authors as recent as Shakespeare have recurring themes, ideas and word sequences throughout all their writings. This is very evident in Paul’s letters, especially the ones that are authentic in contradistinction to those that are questioned. Paul’s usage of words in a number of his letters is a great indication that if it used in an entirely different way in another text, it may indicate the same author is not behind both. Scholars have recognized this habit in the Pastorals for decades now.

As for Revelation, a lack of any direct theological, historical or thematic cohesion with the gospel and epistles is just as valid a way of doubting a common author as the presence of those things indicates a common author in the case of the gospel and epistles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@keatsiannightingale9256 "If you are suggesting that Jesus knew Latin, there’s not much for me to work with. You are suggestible to many implausibilities if that’s the case."

How is it implausible that Jesus met Romans speaking Latin, as well as Romans speaking Greek in Galilee? Galil ha Goyim = Galilee of the Gentiles. Note, I said, "Latin, or Greek, or both" .... Greek might be the most plausible. But I am not excluding Latin too.

"The whole story of St. Loginus is Medieval fiction and not rooted in history."

a) Is Matthew 27:54 Medieval fiction too?
b) Is Queen Helen finding the Holy Cross Medieval fiction too? Stephan Borgehammar is a top notch critical scholar and has defended the thesis the story goes back to the time of the "purported" events.
c) Is "rooted in history" = rooted in modern critical scholarship?

"If you put that on par with top-notch critical scholarship, you are bound to make many mistakes in your analysis."

No, I don't put Medieval legends on par with top notch critical scholarship, I put them usually far above it.

"The evidence we have only has Jesus speaking Aramaic explicitly."

And implicit evidence, as for Hebrew in the synagogue doesn't count? I'll return to the centurion in a moment.

"But even in the case of the Roman centurion of Matthew 8 and Luke 7, there’s no reason one of whom it was said “He loves our nation” would and could not have learned the local dialect."

Similarily, there is no reason one who was astonished at Roman obedience would not and could not have learned one or both languages of the Romans, at least to some degree.

"what actual evidence, if any, supports the notion that Jesus spoke any Latin or Greek?"

The exact same evidence you have that the centurion spoke any Aramaic. Opportunity and probability of willingness. Especially as Jesus probably was in Alexandria during the stay in Egypt. That's specially in favour of Greek.

"it is simply not convenient to do so in this format, as you must obviously know."

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ,

Calling your bluff.

"However, your contention that narrative in a vision versus in a true account must differ stylistically"

I did not contend anything about "vision" vs "true account" but "vision" vs "everyday situations".
I also did not contend anything about "must" I am fine with "reasonably could" -- which is enough to refute your pretended proof for diverse authorship.

I contend that in fact St. John the Gospeller knew Ezechiel and Daniel and drew on them when describing his visions, for reason of stylistic ... aemulatio autorum? (Like Virgil emulated Homer and Apollonius).
I contend that in fact St. John the Gospeller also had an everyday speech and drew on that when writing the Gospel.

"Obviously there’s nothing inherent in the language of Greek or Hebrew that would incline an author to just use the word “and” at the beginning of sentences in a vision narrative to a greater degree than in a normal narrative."

Another deliberate strawman of my position. There is something inherent in Hebrew which inclines an author making a calque on Hebrew to use "kai" where Hebrew has "ve" ... an imitatio autorum directed to Daniel and Ezechiel would obviously tend to make the Greek precisely that kind of calque. In the Gospel, he's basically part of inventing the genre, if anything his models are the synoptics.

"Additionally, is there any evidence that John is emulating the style of Greek Ezekiel or Greek Daniel?"

I don't know. The reason I asked you to provide evidence from Gospel and Apocalypse is, my Greek is too rusty to make that kind of comparison. In Latin I could definitely see the difference between Summa and Postilla in Libros Geneseos, I believe St. Thomas wrote the first in Roccasecca, and brushed up his Latin a lot when arriving among Dominicans. In Greek, I can't do that comparison.

My contention is that St. John (a Cohen according to the thesis of Jean Colson) knew Daniel and Ezechiel in Hebrew / Aramaic.

Before you mix the thesis of Colson with the idea of two authors (as the man introducing me to Colson did, it seems to be fashionable), and before you take St. Irenaeus as warrant for the Son of Zebedee being the author of the Apocalypse, let me note that Colson precisely attributes a mix-up to St. Irenaeus who left Asia Minor at age 16 (i e before having an opportunity to sort the two different John's out). You know, the top-notch critical scholarship of Colson ...

"Even authors as recent as Shakespeare have recurring themes, ideas and word sequences throughout all their writings."

Rape of Lucrece ~ A Twelfth Night. Theme "classic" does not count, as it is known to be common between both, in advance.
Silmarillion and The Hobbit (dragons doesn't count, as Smaug / Glaurung is known to have that reference in both works).

If you state "even ... as recent as" you are basically implying that stylistic variation between works is a clear option within human feasability. This makes the supposed universal up to Shakespear totally moot.

"This is very evident in Paul’s letters, especially the ones that are authentic in contradistinction to those that are questioned."

In other words, for one guesswork of different authorships, you are appealing to another such guesswork, and one that is apostatic in tendency. You are at least showing where your bias is, and I hold it to be a superstitious one as well as an apostatic one.

"Scholars have recognized this habit in the Pastorals for decades now."

You mean they are finally catching up on common things between Romans and Pastorals? They may do so between Gospel and Apoc.