The Ur-John Thesis

[O'Darby]

I'm going to toss this out there, and risk incurring the wrath of certain types of Christians, simply because I find it fascinating and convincing. It's called the Ur-John Thesis.

The Thesis is the work of a layman named Evan Powell. It is nearly impossible for a layman to cause any stir in the closed community of Serious New Testament Scholarship, but Powell did. Because academia is pretty much of a closed shop, I can't say that any NT scholars fully embraced the Thesis. but they did acknowledge that it's clever and intriguing.

Alas, I don't know what happened to Powell. His site is still up, but the huge section on the Thesis is now gone and there has been a "Full Proposal Coming Soon" announcement up for years now. The Ur-John Thesis —.

The Thesis is apparently covered in Powell's 1994 book, The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, still available at Amazon (Amazon.com). You'll note that the reviews are enthusiastic. (Alas, Powell also has some extremely controversial theories that would be offensive to most Christians, including me, so be forewarned.)

Anyway, what is the Ur-John Thesis?

It's easily stated:

• There are basically two distinct strands to the Gospel of John.
  
  
• The first (Ur-John), generated by the Beloved Disciple, is a historical Gospel that is actually the earliest. This explains why John and the Synoptics are quite different insofar as their accounts of Jesus are concerned: John predated the Synoptics, and the Synoptics were aware of each other but not of John.
  
  
• The more hifalutin portions of the Gospel of John are a series of much-later redactions undertaken by a series of editors to address contemporary theological concerns such as Gnosticism (and, Powell believes, to tidy up John's negative view of Peter). The last of these redactions would be attributable to the period typically assigned to the Gospel (roughly 100 AD). This was when the Gospel was in the form we now have. This explains why the Gospel's Greek and Christology seem awfully sophisticated for a humble Beloved Disciple.

On the portions now missing from Powell's site, he went through the entire Gospel on a line-by-line basis and identified the historical original and the later redactions. I found it very convincing and found that it really enhanced my reading of John. I don't think you really need Powell's book to consider the Gospel of John in this light.

I don't insist the Ur-John Thesis is correct, but it does resolve a fair number of mysteries. There's no reason to suppose the Holy Spirit couldn't have informed and guided the entire process. If you're one of those who is offended or threatened by this sort of thinking and prefers to take the Gospel of John at face value, that's fine. (Sometime I'll share the weird epiphany involving the Gospel of John that caused me to become a Christian one afternoon when that was the farthest thing from my mind.)

 

[marks]

There is a similar theory regarding Deuteronomy.

Concerning John's Gospel, he wrote,

John 21:23-24 KJV
23) Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24) This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now, IF John did not write all his Gospel, this statement would not be true, therefore, I think John did in fact write it.

This explains why the Gospel's Greek . . . seem awfully sophisticated

I've actually found the opposite to be true, that his Greek has some issues. To me, John's writing seems like that of someone who is thinking in Hebrew and writing in Greek.

If the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel, the Gospel says it was written by John, so I'm going with that.

Much love!

 

[O'Darby]

There is a similar theory regarding Deuteronomy.

Concerning John's Gospel, he wrote,

John 21:23-24 KJV
23) Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24) This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now, IF John did not write all his Gospel, this statement would not be true, therefore, I think John did in fact write it.


I've actually found the opposite to be true, that his Greek has some issues. To me, John's writing seems like that of someone who is thinking in Hebrew and writing in Greek.

If the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel, the Gospel says it was written by John, so I'm going with that.

Much love!

On your first point, certainly that could have been in the early Ur-John portion and simply not removed by later editors. It would have been true of the Ur portion when the Beloved Disciple wrote it.

I think I've talked myself into buying Powell's book and holding my nose through the wackier portions.

 

[marks]

On your first point, certainly that could have been in the early Ur-John portion and simply not removed by later editors. It would have been true of the Ur portion when the Beloved Disciple wrote it.

I think I've talked myself into buying Powell's book and holding my nose through the wackier portions.

But it wouldn't be true of the Gospel we have now. So if you are to argue that this was what happened, then it means the Gospel was adulterated, and is no longer completely true. This would mean that the changes were not inspired because we are not left with a cohesive whole, we are left with a contradiction.

Personally, I would not recommend his book, specifically because of this point. To me, it invalidates either the Gospel, or his theory.

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't insist the Ur-John Thesis is correct, but it does resolve a fair number of mysteries. There's no reason to suppose the Holy Spirit couldn't have informed and guided the entire process. If you're one of those who is offended or threatened by this sort of thinking and prefers to take the Gospel of John at face value, that's fine. (Sometime I'll share the weird epiphany involving the Gospel of John that caused me to become a Christian one afternoon when that was the farthest thing from my mind.)

Interesting topic, thanks.
Any thoughts about whether this had an affect on John's Apocalypse?
Some date that writing at 95 AD.

/

 

[O'Darby]

But it wouldn't be true of the Gospel we have now. So if you are to argue that this was what happened, then it means the Gospel was adulterated, and is no longer completely true. This would mean that the changes were not inspired because we are not left with a cohesive whole, we are left with a contradiction.

Personally, I would not recommend his book, specifically because of this point. To me, it invalidates either the Gospel, or his theory.

Much love!

Well, certainly. If the Ur-John Thesis were correct, then large portions would not have been written by the Beloved Disciple. That isn't troubling to me, but it's why I recognize the Thesis would be troubling or objectionable to some Christians.

 

[O'Darby]

Interesting topic, thanks.
Any thoughts about whether this had an affect on John's Apocalypse?
Some date that writing at 95 AD.

/

That is true. I haven't given any thought to how it might relate to the Apocalypse. I was just excited because it does persuasively (to me) answer two things I'd always found troubling: (1) why is John so different from the Synoptics if it's much later and (2) how did a presumably humble Beloved Disciple write with the level of sophistication we see in the Gospel? I know there has been considerable controversy and doubt as to whether the author of Revelation was also the author of John's Gospel, so the Ur-John Thesis may have no bearing or possibly one of the later editors of John's Gospel also wrote Revelation. As I'm sure you know, in ancient times it wasn't considered improper or scandalous to attribute a writing to a more prominent figure.

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, certainly. If the Ur-John Thesis were correct, then large portions would not have been written by the Beloved Disciple. That isn't troubling to me, but's why I recognize the Thesis would be troubling or objectionable to some Christians.

There may have been lots of meddling with the whole Bible.
Many theories on that.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

That is true. I haven't given any thought to how it might relate to the Apocalypse. I was just excited because it does persuasively (to me) answer two things I'd always found troubling: (1) why is John so different from the Synoptics if it's much later and (2) how did a presumably humble Beloved Disciple write with the level of sophistication we see in the Gospel? I know there has been considerable controversy and doubt as to whether the author of Revelation was also the author of John's Gospel, so the Ur-John Thesis may have no bearing or possibly one of the later editors of John's Gospel also wrote Revelation. As I'm sure you know, in ancient times it wasn't considered improper or scandalous to attribute a writing to a more prominent figure.

Actually...
I'm less disturbed that John's gospel is different than I am about the Synoptic Gospels all being essentially the same. ???
The three are nearly duplicates. Obvious plagiarism by either the "writers" or the translators.

/

 

[APAK]

Interesting topic, thanks.
Any thoughts about whether this had an affect on John's Apocalypse?
Some date that writing at 95 AD.

/

This can be a long conversation....just a bite of it here...

Four sources (90-98 AD) versus one (before 66 AD), places this writing as you say in the 90s AD period. I do not agree with this later 'non-eventful' period for only an audience far flung into the centuries beyond its writing.

Of the 4 sources, 3 of them went with the other one. And this source was very unreliable. For example he pegged Christ's death in his 50s.....

And then the style and the grammar of/in this writing, within this Book, suggested another author wrote portions of it for/as John or as a later revised version.

And then there are other reasons why it was not written at this much later date. For example, John not being a Roman citizen, and his rights under Roman Law, and then was he truly under duress on the Isle he was preaching on, eventhough he said he was also under tribulation.

Short answer is that this Revelation book was written before 66 AD, inline with the bulk of its message and local audience, and with 'tribulations' of the Roman-Judean wars already in play, as the Zealots controlled Jerusalem. And not saying there are no future messages for today and the future either because it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. There are many dual time period messages.....

 

[St. SteVen]

There are many dual time period messages.....

I have wondered whether the end-times antichrist (beast and Prophet) was a boogie man of our own creation.
But if he was in that time period, who was the 666? And is their a historical record of the beast coming back to life?

/

 

[APAK]

Now Steve, here's a commentary of just one part of a Chapter in Revelation of Christ I wrote drawn from various sources and from my own noggin. It points to the preterist view of this Beast and the coded '666' that does fit into the local context and audience for when it was written and what John would have written to get the believers of that time to understand the urgency of 'getting out of Dodge.' And they did.....

And there is much speculation whether there is a future event for a different audience concerning this '666' for today or 500 years from now. I'm very skeptical however that there is one at all.

-----------------

Chapter 13 - The Red Beast​

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 13: Satan gives his power to the Roman Empire and its Emperors (depicted as a sea-beast with seven heads). John gives a prophecy about the Empire’s death and subsequent resurrection that took place following Nero’s suicide. (68-69 AD) John describes the present persecution of the Christians by the Roman Empire, prophesying that it would last for 42 months. (November 64 – June 68 AD) John sees apostate Israel (depicted as an earth-beast disguised as a lamb) ally itself with the Roman Empire in this persecution. Apostate Israel’s false prophets perform false miracles in order to deceive people into rejecting Christ and following Caesar. (30-67 AD) The “mark of the beast” is Hebrew gematria that codifies the name of Nero Caesar into the number 666. The name is not believed to have been codified because John was afraid of persecution (he was already being persecuted), but because of the symbolism behind the number 666. The “mark” is not a literal tattoo but refers to how apostate Israel required its opponents to submit to the Roman Emperors or face persecution. Anyone who took the mark was spared from the wrath of Rome and apostate Israel.

Verses 1-6​

The Beast is a Kingdom that arose from the previous three Kingdoms after it relinquished it Republic political system and became a dictatorship starting with Julius Caesar. It had 10 horns and 7 heads. It was the Roman Kingdom that had 10 Emperors

The 6th Emperor Nero committed suicide in June 68 AD that caused the Kingdom to go into a civil war. It was finally resurrected to life with the appointment of Vespasian as the new Caesar in 69 AD. The Kingdom seemed invincible and fearless. It even saw itself as more powerful that God. It continued to rule and boast for 3 ½ years.

Out of Nero’s deadhead, emerged two new heads in its place, of the Flavian Dynasty – Vespasian and Titus his son. See Rev 17:11

He opened his ‘mouth’ to blaspheme God, his name, against true believers and those in heaven.

Verse 8​

Jesus was purposed by his Father before creation, to be born and slain as the perfect sacrifice for sin.

----------------------------etc----

 

[St. SteVen]

The name is not believed to have been codified because John was afraid of persecution (he was already being persecuted), but because of the symbolism behind the number 666. The “mark” is not a literal tattoo but refers to how apostate Israel required its opponents to submit to the Roman Emperors or face persecution.

Thanks for your post.

What about the application of "the mark" to hand or forehead?
That seems like a tattoo. ???
Even the Greek definition of charagma (mark) seems to support this.

5480 xáragma – properly, an engraving (etching); (figuratively) a mark providing undeniable identification, like a symbol giving irrefutable connection between parties.

5480 /xáragma ("brand-mark") was originally any impress on a coin or a seal, used by an engraver on a die (stamp, branding iron). 5480 (xáragma) later became "the identification-marker" (like with an owner's unique "brand-mark").

[Ancient documents were validated by such stamps or seals (see Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15:6; De Lysandro 16:2, ala DNTT, 2, 574).]

/

 

[St. SteVen]

@APAK
I tend to agree that there will not be an antichrist in the end times, but...
This scripture becomes an issue due to its time-frame. (the Millennium)
And its mention of the mark.

Revelation 20:4 NIV
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about
Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image
and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

/

 

[APAK]

@APAK
I tend to agree that there will not be an antichrist in the end times, but...
This scripture becomes an issue due to its time-frame. (the Millennium)
And its mention of the mark.

Revelation 20:4 NIV
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about
Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image
and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

/

Thanks for your post.

What about the application of "the mark" to hand or forehead?
That seems like a tattoo. ???
Even the Greek definition of charagma (mark) seems to support this.

5480 xáragma – properly, an engraving (etching); (figuratively) a mark providing undeniable identification, like a symbol giving irrefutable connection between parties.

5480 /xáragma ("brand-mark") was originally any impress on a coin or a seal, used by an engraver on a die (stamp, branding iron). 5480 (xáragma) later became "the identification-marker" (like with an owner's unique "brand-mark").

[Ancient documents were validated by such stamps or seals (see Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15:6; De Lysandro 16:2, ala DNTT, 2, 574).]

/

Just got some breakfast...

Well the mark is a symbolic depiction of one's state of the heart, mind and eventual actions of a person. Whether they are for and of God or not. From the heart (forehead) to the mind to actions (of the hand). It will show in either 'location' Those that decide to submit to evil and evil forces will show this mark as in the setting I gave for example...

 

[Mr E]

Great thread @O'Darby -- an interesting topic. I've long been interested in John as well, and it's certainly my favorite window.

I'll take some time to look also at this Powel perspective-- it's one among several of interest. The difficulty remains in attributing certain writings to certain people. Honest academics admit that we don't really know who wrote the gospel accounts. They could be 'told' as recollections of eyewitnesses, and written by another hand, while attributed to the teller.

As far as thinking in Hebrew and writing in Greek, as @marks suggested-- this would explain some of that, but the Aramaic Peshitta is likely the language of original telling and penmanship.

We don't even know with certainty if John is written by "the John" we think we know. Is it John- Zebedee? Is he the beloved apostle? Or is it actually the youngest apostle-- young John-- Mark? This makes some sense in that the gospel of Mark (John-Mark) is thought to be the original gospel account, upon which the other synoptic gospels are based. As a writer-- John Mark was obviously influential.

So he writes his gospel--the gospel of Mark, which is a simple telling of all the things that happened, but he also writes this book-- this alternative gospel-- a completely different telling.... why? And why so different?

I've stumbled across one interesting academic who is convinced that in the gospel of John-- it is Mark who is telling the story of the mystery of the experience as told to him by the true beloved of Jesus-- the one we know as Mary Magdelene. It would never bear her name, but it is her story, --sharing the nature and effect of the man she loved.

 

[Mr E]

Alas, I don't know what happened to Powell. His site is still up, but the huge section on the Thesis is now gone and there has been a "Full Proposal Coming Soon" announcement up for years now. The Ur-John Thesis —.

The Thesis is apparently covered in Powell's 1994 book, The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, still available at Amazon (Amazon.com). You'll note that the reviews are enthusiastic. (Alas, Powell also has some extremely controversial theories that would be offensive to most Christians, including me, so be forewarned.)

The website is entirely disappointing.

Of course, I spent the $6.48 and ordered the book.