-- The Third Gospel --

>> On 10Oct99 Mark Fleharty wrote: <snip> The original manuscripts don't exist but their copies do.
>> The same is true of the NT. We don't have any of the original manuscripts of the NT, they are all
>> copies from the originals. <snip remainder>
.
 erasmian say: Dear Cyber-Saints, we are constantly, repeatedly, and continuously bombarded by this idea that we are utterly lacking for the original autographs. The implication is that this fact is of tremendous significance; although we are never told why. One is led to suspect that the original manuscripts were somehow perfect, or otherwise flawless in every conceivable way, such that any and all errors that may now exist in the biblical texts are entirely the results of the accidents due to the imperfect process of transmission. And so it goes.
.
 The one thing that can be said about all these people who speak after the manner of Fleharty here is that none of them ever bother their silly heads with a careful examination of the evidence to see if indeed there is any substance to their arrogant claims. If they did, then they would quickly see that nothing is ever so clear cut in the realm of textual criticism as to allow for such simplistic 'black and white' assertions. "We don't have any of the original manuscripts of the NT!" Well, boo hoo! As a matter of plain and simple fact, this absolute declaration is as false as saying 'water is not wet'.
.
 In other words, and not surprisingly, there is *one* (very NOT minor) exception to this "ironclad fact" of our being utterly bereft of all trace of the original autographs. Oh, it's not a complete text of any NT book by any means. No, it is merely a tiny little fragment (3.5 inches long, and 2.5 inches wide), containing portions of seven lines on each side. This mere handful of letters and words on a small scrap of ancient papyrus was discovered in Egypt in 1920, and then was left to sit unnoticed and neglected for years. It was given the unassuming name of P52, and it is apparent that even today's textual critics are all but totally ignorant of the true value and meaning of this papyrus fragment; the most important piece of paper in the entire world!
.
 Yes, it's true that some scholars clearly recognize that P52 is important; but they are very like unto a group of young children who stumble across a suitcase full of thousand dollar bills. That is, they know that this is important, but they're not quite sure why: "Although the extent of the verses preserved is so slight, in one respect this tiny scrap of papyrus possesses quite as much evidential value as would the complete codex" (B.M.Metzger, 'The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration', 3rd Edition, p.39). In the bizarre world of textual critics, this could easily be considered a very extravagant statement ... 
.
 Thus the textual critics will not say that P52 is a fragment from the original autograph written by the hand of the Beloved Apostle himself, but all the evidence is so suggestive to that end, that this conclusion is hardly unwarranted. But textual critics will not even think to leap to that conclusion; simply because it is their nature to be a timid and unimaginative lot. Nevertheless, true believers have every reason to rejoice in the fact that Providence has granted this ungrateful generation a small portion of the Gospel of John (ie. parts of verses 18:31-33,37,38) as it was when it first entered the world in the ancient land of Egypt round about c.100CE.
.
 The surviving fragment is only about 9 cm tall by 6 cm wide at its widest. Counting lines makes it appear that the pages contained about eighteen lines of about 32 letters per line. This implies a page size of about 22 cm by 20 cm; which would make the Gospel of John the earliest known codex ...  Most scholars today tend to date P52 somewhere between 110-125CE; but a small variance of only a decade backward would be quite enough to make this fragment part of the original MS. Oddly enough, very little is know about the text on this fragment; except for what is plain and obvious (eg. there are about 118 legible letters on P52).

 Recto:
        OIIOUDAI  HME
        OUDENAINAOL
        PENSHMAINW
        QNHSKEINIS
        RIONOP
        KAIEIP
          IW
.
 Verso:
                       TOG  NN  AI
                   SMONINAMARTU
                        THSALHQE
                       LEGEIAUTW
                            ITOUT
                            TOUSI
                              MI

 If the columns of P52 had about thirty-one characters per line, then the most likely reconstruction of the lines we have is as follows:
[Note to Reader: the surviving characters are shown below in the upper-case, while the reconstructed text is shown in the lower-case]

 [Recto: John 18:31-33]
OI IOUDAIoi HMEin ouk exestin apokteinai
OUDENA INA O Logos tou iu plhrwqh on ei-
PEN SHMAINWn poiw qanatw hmellen apo-
QNHSKEIN IShlqen ouk palin eis to praitw-
RION O Pilatos kai efwnhsen ton in
KAI EIPen autw su ei o basileus twn iou-
daIWn...
.
Therefore Pilate said to them,
"Take him yourselves and judge
him by your own law." The
Judeans said to him, "It is not
lawful for us to put anyone to
death." This was to fulfill the
word which Jesus had spoken to show
by what death he would die. Pilate
entered the praetorium again and
called Jesus, and said to him,
"Are you the king of the Judeans?"
.
 [Verso: John 18:37-38]
(...leus) eimi egw eis touTO GegNNhmAI
kai elhluqa eis ton koSMON INA MARTU-
rhsw th alhqeia pas o wn THS ALHQEi-
as akouei mou ths fwnhs LEGEI AUTW
o pilatos ti estin alhqeia kaI TOUTo
eipwn palin exhlqen pros TOUS Iou-
daious kai legei autois ego oudeMIan
.
Therefore Pilate said to him,
"Then you are a king?" Jesus
answered, "You say that I am a
king. For this I was born, and
for this I have come into
society: to witness to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the
truth hears my voice." Pilate
said to him, "What is truth?"
After he had said this, he went
out to the Judeans again, and
he told them, "I find no crime
in him."

> On 22Nov99 skw wrote in alt.religion.christian.biblestudy an article entitled 'Re: Is the bible without
> error ?' in which is made the following statement: <snip> There were no mistakes in the Bible when
> those writers wrote the Bible, because the Holy Spirit guided them to write the Bible and the Holy
> Spirit cannot make any mistakes. <snip>
.
 Just because the Holy Spirit "cannot make any mistakes" doesn't mean that the human authors were likewise imbued with inerrant perfectionism. One of the more interesting features of the text (and one that actually supports the claim of P52 being a part of the original autograph) is the presence of two minor spelling errors [in line 1r (HMEin), and line 4r (IShlqen)], which clearly suggests that the original autograph as a whole very probably contained a fair number of such "typos" (indicating that the author was very likely not fluent in the written Koine). This suggests that the author wrote the text of John hurriedly, and under the influence of excitement, such that little regard was given to the more mundane matters of spelling and grammar. Now this is just what one would expect in the original autograph, because all such typos would be subsequently corrected by diligent scribes making copies from the imperfect original.
.
 Thus we see that history once again runs counter to the expectations of foolish Christians who imagine that the original autographs were perfect in every way, and that all errors were introduced later into the copies of the copies of the copies. In fact, however, the typos and other minor editorial errors within the autographs were cleaned up in the process of transmission, giving the erroneous impression that the original was likewise perfect. P52 shows us the way to the truth about these matters. It is our witness to the truth about the nature of the original autographs!

P.S.  Acknowledgments: The translation of the Recto and Verso used above is by K.C.Hanson. This article likewise owes much to the valuable information available to all cyber-saints at the two following web-sites: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/  . . . and . . .   http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/johnpap.html
... For those who might be interested, this second site also offers a photo of this amazing papyrus fragment (see below).

/ Topic >  Re: To Witness to the Truth / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / TheologyOnLine Forum > Bible Study / 10 Jan 2000 /
.
 "If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know.
But if someone loves God, he is known by God." -- 1Corinthians 8:2-3 / NETbible
.
> On 8Jan2000 ANTHONY wrote: To sum up what you are saying is that
> the bible is not accurately translated and that people are gullible.
.
 erasmian say: Dear Anthony, I don't know how you got all that from my article, and although you are right to say "that the bible is not accurately translated and that people are gullible", nevertheless neither one of these facts constitutes the main point or purpose of the article. Therefore I have serious reservations about your glib and grossly misleading 'summing up'.
.
> You have done great in your research in finding errors.
.
 It was not my purpose to expose the errors of fools (as such), but rather to articulate the significance and meaning of papyrus fragment P52.
.
> This show you have taken upon your self to get accurate information
.
 I take no credit for that because this is what all bible scholars *attempt* and *intend* to do. Alas, the vast majority of these scribes are so concerned about pleasing their peers, and appearing clever and learned, and publishing for the sake of publishing, that very few are able to break through the unfounded assumptions and erroneous conclusions of their beloved consensus. Thus one need only examine the popular commentaries on James & Jude to see just how inaccurate and pathetic is the current sorry condition of the biblical sciences.
.
> - PHILIPPIANS 1:9
.

 "And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight so that you can decide what is best, and so be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God." -- Phil 1:9-11 / NETbible

.
 I just love this passage; don't you? In these early words of Paulos of Damascus (penned c.51CE) we have the very beginnings of the true gnosis of the early Christian prophets. I often make much of the fact that the second century Christian prophets of Egypt represent a high point in the development of the prophetic tradition ... 4X:
.

 "For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately. -- 2Peter 1:5-8 / NETbible

.
 ... but we sometimes forget that all of this started much earlier. In Paul we have its first Christian expression, but its roots actually go back to the wisdom and prophetic traditions of the Jews, and before them to the ancient Hebrews. Thus while the gnosis of the second century heretics was a new-fangled and eclectic mix of old and new, pagan and Christian, reason and irrational fantasy, the gnosis of the Christians prophets was and remains altogether biblical in essence and expression (as the above three quotes clearly demonstrate).
.
> The best way to find out if an error has been made is when it doesn't coincide with other scriptures
> and God purpose. You must read the bible from cover to cover to have a overall view. This could be
> another reason why we have all these denomination in the body of Christ. Confusion.
.
 Ignorance of the sacred scriptures is often firmly based upon strong (though largely unconscious) theological assumptions and preconceptions that prevent the Reader from allowing the text to speak for itself. For example, if one supposes that 2Peter was written by the apostle Simon-Peter sometime in the early sixties of the Common Era, then it is a foregone conclusion that one will not be able to properly appreciate the meaning and message of this epistle. This is because the Reader arrogantly divorces the text from its actual social, spiritual, and historical context, and substitutes a context that is nothing other than pure pious fantasy having no basis whatsoever in reality. Small wonder then that no one agrees with the cyber-prophet's interpretation of the universal epistle called '2Peter' . . .
.
> If 90% plus of the bible was intrepret accurately you'll know what has not been. because it will be
> reveal a stand out. I have run into the same problem. It can cause contradition and a lot people to
> turn away. I still believe that the bible is God's word and he did'nt allow some intrepreters to decieve us.
.
 I have often been accused of attempting to deliberately deceive the People of God by way of my prophetically slanted interpretations of the sacred texts, but this is the very opposite of what I am trying to do with my online ministry. More than anything else, I want people to rid themselves of their biased assumptions, and to pay strict attention to the sacred texts in themselves, and apart from the nineteen centuries of pious dross that has encrusted the scriptures; (for what the texts actually say is very often at odds with what the churches and their many many theologians, bible-scholars, and commentators say).
.
> That is why a lot of the bible was written in special I want to say code or sacred-secret and is to
> be reveal in the last days. Those who inaccurately translated the bible probably overlook easy
> secret passages that will be important in the last days.
.
 Well, I don't know about all that, but it is certainly quite clear to me that a lot of work still remains to be done before we have a good and faithful English translation of the earliest Greek texts. *Then* perhaps we can begin working on commentaries that will do justice to the Word. 
.
> COLOSSIANS 1:26,27
.

 "I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship of the grace of God — given to me for you — in order to complete the word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to his saints. God wanted to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."  -- Colossians 1:25-27 / NETbible

.
 Just so. Let us therefore not fear to boldly explore the mysteries of the Word of God; for the Lord has promised us that all that has been kept hidden *will* be revealed . . . but only if you can open your heart and mind to the Word.

- one who uncovers the forgotten riches - erasmian  ;>

/ Christian Forums > Theology (Christian Only) > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics / Date > 11 Feb 2012 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.philosophy / Topic >

Welcome, all students of the prophet John. [Note to Reader: students-of-Jn are the wurm's favorite kind of believer!] This is our next lesson on how to study the third gospel. So then, let's get right to it: Now one of the ideas that NT-students will sooner or later be exposed to is that of the so-called "canon within the canon". Most discussions on this topic will involve reference to various known heretics, and usually end by simply dismissing this notion as a possible (or actual) heresy, which ought therefore to be carefully (but firmly) avoided. But after giving the matter some thimking, we've decided that it may be possible to make use of this idea in a way that is of some benefit to students-of-John in particular, and even to NT-students in general.
.
So let's begin by recognizing that the New Testament is very like unto an onion; that is, it has LAYERS! (As  the ogre named Shreck might say) It has layers of (written and formerly-oral) traditions stacked upon other (older) layers of such traditions. Students of the second gospel (Mt) will recognize the necessity of this layered approach to the texts inasmuch as Mt is an expanded revision of the first gospel (of Mark & Peter) which incorporates about 60% of the source material. Yes, very difficult it is to see how any NT-student could possibly learn anything from Mt *without* this very necessary idea of 'layers' of traditions within the texts. Obviously this idea of text-layers applies very well indeed to the study of the second gospel and its amazing literary dependence upon the first gospel.

.
So why not take the same approach to the NT as a whole? ... Now the NT is made up of 26 documents coming from 10 decades of early church-history (50-150CE). So that's roughly ten layers of oral and written traditions stacked one on top of the other. And (thanks to the canonical-format) thoroughly mixed together; it's as if the texts had been run through a text-blender (several times even)! Golden threads of textual and non-textual traditions bind the sacred documents together in a highly intimate embrace. Look there; can you see them moving gracefully through the words and phrases? Yes, traditions and inspirations ebb and flow through, around, and between the documents; pulling them into natural literary-groupings that share various features, qualities, and ideas (which other groups of similar documents may or may not have; or manage in quite the same way).
.
So, for example, one relevant group of docs that the student of John should be aware of is the egyptian block of texts, composed of: Heb, Jn, 1Jn, Jm, Rev, 2&3Jn, Jd, 2Pt. That's one literary-tree composed of nine of the 26 NT-docs. And then there is the pauline family of docs having two sections: (1) Paul's docs: 1&2Thes, Plm, Phil, 1&2Cor, Gal, Rom. That's eight of 26. (2) the pauline docs: Eph, Col, 1Pet add three more to Paul's group of docs, bringing his doc-count up to eleven of 26. Another younger group of docs is the Roman block: Lk-Acts, 1&2Tim, and Tit, being a total of FOUR docs. 4 + 11 + 9 = 24. Add to this Antioch's contribution to the NT of the two gospels Mk & Mt and you have :
.
Antioch / Peter       > 2
Paul & Friends         > 11
Egypt / John & bff  > 9
Rome & Friends      > 4

.
So that's four complex and intertwined literary traditions stemming from various times and places in the first and second centuries. So that's 26 "mixed" documents; only one of which is actually a book per se (Lk-Act). Mk, Mt, and Jn are more like novellas and/or short-stories. And the rest are a mixture of types: letters, homilies, essays, and (of course) epistles. So it's not the literary type or age or location of any particular doc that *necessarily* determines its relative strength or rank or spiritual authority within the four main tradition-streams within the NT. So how do we make some sensible order out of all this chaotic and eclectic and disorderly mess? Well, think of the NT-texts as a solid block of millions of random letters all jammed tightly together to form a solid geometrical shape. This shape is that of a pyramid, where the top layer represents the oldest (and most inspired) literary traditions; these are the docs that started it all, the first and finest, the top-tier of quality and authority. And this exalted area naturally contains the best fruits of the three pillars; from which all the other docs derive their nature and quality and authority.
.
And what significance does all this textual-foreplay have for the student of John? Well, obviously Jn (along with 1Jn) is one of the big-three; the other two text-pillars being Paul's (canonical) 8, plus the Gospel of Mark & Peter. So the chronology of the top-layer's 3 pillars of spiritual authority is very relevant: P8 leads to Mk, and Mk & P8 together result in Jn. And so there are TEN NT-docs that reside in the uppermost reaches of our proposed pyramid of spiritual and textual authority. And these are Paul's "seven" (but actually MORE than seven because several of these canonical units are composed of smaller letters - and fragments of letters - stitched together) authentic epistles (ie. P8 minus poor Philemon who simply does not have the necessary spiritual-juice to merit inclusion among the best of the best). Then there's Mark and John, plus John's introduction to (and commentary on) the third gospel, called First John (1Jn). And so this is our top ten list of the most important, most authoritative, most necessary, AND most *inspired* texts of all the NT-docs.
.

Now these top-ten NT-docs share two important qualities: the first is that they all proclaim the good news of salvation through faith in the Christos, and the second is that all these documents are shining examples of prophetic literature in its finest forms of textual-expression. In literary and theological terms, all of this means that Jn is in constant dialogue with both Peter and Paul. And this means that the third gospel is very much an *answer* to both Peter and Paul! And this means that the student of John MUST be familiar with P8 (50s) & Mk (60s) BEFORE he or she can begin *any* study of the third gospel. Failure to do this will result in much sorrow and confusion and unnecessary gnashing of teeth! Anyway, Jn (from the 80s) is not so much an expansion and revision of Mk - as second tier Mt (70s) is - but rather much more of a *correction* of the other two pillars Peter & Paul. The third gospel is thus (in essence and effect) a major re-envisioning of the *entire* judeo-christian tradition as it was at the time of the Parting of the Ways (ie. just prior to the second-century of the new age of the Logos).

P.S. This article brought to you (in part) by the good-people over at NoteTab Light.
.
P.P.S. the Reader may now commence screaming ...

On John's Two-Fold Way

/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.philosophy / e-mail > exchange@cbc.ca /
/ Christian Forums > Theology Christian Only > Christian Scriptures / Date > 14 Feb 2012 / Topic > On John's Two-Fold Way /

Introduction > Yes, the wurm is back online, and already back at the Lord's business. We are now behind the virtual-wheels of a cheap
new windows7 laptop; and the intel-i5 CPU purrs like a soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur ... Anyway, happy Valentine's Day to
all the cyber-saints! The Lord likes v-day because it is a day that  celebrates love. And you can never have too many of those. So what
better way to celebrate "the power of love" than to dive right back into our ongoing inquiry into the revolutionary teachings of the good
prophet John:
.
When contemplating and/or praying on the divine-Logos, believers should always bear in mind that although the proper literal translation
of 'logos' is 'way of reason' (which meaning includes both 'word' and 'plan'), the prophet John uses the term with a far more *expansive*
meaning than the meanings of the previous sages and philosophers. Thus the divine-Logos is for John the 'Way of Love & Reason'. And
the primary cause of John's spiritual expansion of an old, but rich, philosophical concept is basicly quite simple: because "God is Love",
then all love is, by its very "inner-nature" (or essence, as it were), a thing having or approaching a subtle divine quality ...
.
Hence the Way is *necessarily* a two-fold Way. Love without Reason lacks direction and purpose, while Reason without Love lacks true
meaning and real value. Love and Reason are therefore very closely connected in John's logos-theology. As life leads to love, as light
leads to reason, so the Way of the divine-Logos leads to grace *and* truth. Thus Jesus is not simply the incarnation of divine-love.
Nor is he just the incarnation of divine-reason. The prophet's theology will make no sense whatsoever until we realize (and accept) that
the Way of Christos requires both love and reason in equal measure.
.
And if the religion of the Lord could be reduced to just "love", then how is this any different from what the Beatles preached (eg. "all you
need is love")? And if the religion of the Lord could be reduced to just "treason", then how is this any different from the massive philosophy
of Hegel? ... No, no. Hegel and Lennon are obviously *both* wrong, because they only saw half of the whole "big-picture". Love cannot be
true-love without reason. And reason cannot satisfy us without love.
.
Thus even the evil-one (Kevin O'Leary) recognizes the truth of all this deep deep down at the bottom of his black-heart; else why
would he contribute any money to charities at all? But he does it because the true Way is NOT the ever-busy Way of Money & 'Wealth
for the Wealthy', but rather the slow and quiet and peaceful Way of timid-love and shy-reason!
.
... This is the good-news according to John.
. 
- - - the almost theological one ~ cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. NT-students will be interested to note that Paulos actually agrees with us for a change: "If someone thinks he knows some-
thing, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know. But if someone loves God, he is known by God." 1Cor.8:2-3 NETbible
.
P.P.S. It is very good news indeed that (after so many centuries of theological warfare) believers are finally able to make a deliberate
choice regarding the *quality* of their faith. They are even free to forego making a responsible decision, and simply accept the obsolete
and aging pauline/episcopal faith of the many and various churches of the scribes and pharisees ... *OR* ... to take a close look at the
various ways of being-christian within the NT, and joyfully choose the light-filled path shown to us by the good prophet called John.
.
Please do NOT flip a coin to decide which way-of-faith is better! 

More Exegesis on the Gospel of John Dept. presents:
ON HAVING TRUE KNOWLEDGE
[Or: A Brief Commentary on the Johannine Prophetic Tradition]

 "Christ called us from darkness into light; he made us serve the Father of Truth. He called us (who had no being) and willed that we have being (out of his new being). This means that knowledge brings being. Knowledge and being belong together; as do lie and non-being. Truth is being; new truth is new being. Whoever has this knowledge of being has saving knowledge.
.
 "This has to be emphasized against a gross misunderstanding: Harnack and his followers viewed ancient Christianity as being infected by Greek intellectualism. There are two things wrong in this viewpoint. First, Greek intellectualism is an inappropriate term because the Greeks were extremely interested in truth. With but some exceptions, the truth they wanted to have was existential truth; truth concerning their existence, truth that saves them out of this distorted existence and elevates them to the Immovable One. The early Christian congregations understood truth in the same way.
.
 "Truth is not theoretical knowledge about objects, but cognitive participation in a new reality that has appeared in the Christ. Without this participation no truth is possible, and knowledge is abstact and meaningless. This is what they meant when they combined knowledge and being. Participating in the new being is participation in truth, in the true knowledge." -- Paul Tillich (from 'A History of Christian Thought) 

textman
*