Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 13:04:37 -0700 From: Bob Schacht Subject: Re: Spirit of God X-Sender: bms1@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu To: miser17@epix.net Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Message-id: <01I33TMEG602QO6DND@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 At 11:12 PM 3/29/96 +0000, you wrote(in part): > >Spirit of God sayings are not going to be Jesus of Nazareth talking >about the Spirit of God, but the Spirit of God speaking in its own >voice through Jesus of Nazareth. > >I'd say off the top of my head GTh 28, 77, 108. These aren't many but the >point I'm making is that there are not-zero, i.e. that G. John isn't >just completely divergent from other texts. > >> Likewise, when I read the Q//Th parallels and the Mk//Th parallels I see no >> "spirit of God" theme either. Perhaps not important, but perhaps important. > >There is a synoptic style of saying which occurs in those parallels, >and *almost* everywhere else in synoptic material. That's one thing. >From a perspective regarding spirit-possession an ordinary persona mainly >controls a person but occasionally an alternate-persona controls a >person. The synoptic material is from an ordinary persona, Jesus of >Nazareth. My thesis doesn't have support from such material. It has >support from Johannine material, from a supposed alternate-persona >who is One with the Father and not of this world. > >It has sometimes been said that Jesus of the Synoptics and Jesus of >John are two quite different people, and thus it is concluded that >the Jesus of John is fictional. Not only "said," but also *written,* e.g., The Five Gospels, p.10. To pull out the key sentence: "The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic Gospels cannot both be historically accurate." >However, being two quite different >people is what spirit-possession is all about, in any culture, then, >today, anywhere. > >If you take synoptic style material to be the basic evidence, then there >are almost no "spirit of God" themes. This is understandable. But >there also is Johannine style evidence. Fundamentally the spirit of god >themes are found in John for *sayings* and are implied in other gospels' >*narratives*, i.e. Jesus was one who received the spirit in baptism, >who through the Spirit of God could heal, forgive sins, exorcise demons >and so forth.... > >Steve > Steve, I would like to discuss the contribution of the Gospel of John for reconstructing the historical Jesus in greater detail. You have here (and previously) outlined your approach, but can we get down to specifics? First, I would like to begin by pointing out that The Five Gospels itself (p. 128) dates the "Signs Gospel" (John 1:19 - 12:50) to 60-70 C.E., *EARLIER* than the date ascribed to the Gospel of Mark (70 C.E.) The label "Book of Signs" was apparently coined and described by Raymond Brown in his 2 vol Gospel of John (Anchor Bible, 1966). He chose this designation because "these chapters largely concern Jesus' miracles, referred to as 'signs,' and discourses which interpret the signs." (vol. 1, p. cxxxix). Seven miraculous signs which are narrated in some detail are listed: 1. Changing water to wine at Cana (ii 1-11) 2. Curing the royal official's son at Cana (iv 46-54) 3. Curing the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida (v 1-15) 4. Multiplication of the loaves in Galilee (vi 1-15) 5. Walking upon the Sea of Galilee (vi 16-21) 6. Curing a blind man in Jerusalem (ix) 7. Raising Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (xi) I might add that the Book of signs includes most of the "I AM" statements in John, including 3 absolute I AMs (with no predicate, inviting comparison with YHWH) in chapter 8 (vs.24,28,58), and including "I am the resurrection and the life" (xi 25). I have no more time right now to elaborate, but I would like very much to see some discussion on the value of these passages for understanding the historical Jesus. Grace and peace, Bob