No, Erhman discusses the verses that most scholars believe to be additions to his Gospel. Besides the adulterous woman, and all of chapt. 21, Erhman points out that chapt.1:1-18 is an addition, probably written as an introduction to the work at a later date. Well, you're assuming that the Gospel of John was written by John when he was alive. Most scholars date John to around 90 C.E. and none believe the actual apostle John wrote the text.
I'm not assuming, I am taking the authorship as has been accepted ever since it was written. It's illogical to assume that these original writings could have been drastically tampered with without any opposition from believers. For example, Paul writes his letters to the churches I come along and change the content. The church authorities or church members say nothing? Isn't that rather naive? Sacred writings can't just be tampered with that way without provoking a protest from those who are familiar with them. and hold them sacred. There is no logical reason to assume that the Biblical writings are exception.
As for the majority of scholars opinions. That's bandwagon. What's relevant is why none of the most believe. The usual reason is that none of the most assume, wildly speculate, reject alternate viable explanations because none of the most don't wish to believe.
As far as the passages being a reference to conflict between John the Baptist's followers and John's followers, that is pure speculation on my part. I started speculating this after reading several different authors and seeing how some feel that the Gospel of John is a direct challenge to the Gospel of Mark and Synoptic Christianity in general.
Glad you admit that it's all just speculation based on how others feel. Some might have been thinking that you were putting forth your own version of John.
The author of John (like Matthew and Luke) pondered the failure of Jesus to return. Matthew and Luke just basically stretch out the time frame between the Resurrection and the return. John goes a different route. John puts forth the argument that not only has the Son of Man come, he has come and gone!
Are you implying that the other Gospel writers didn't believe that Jesus had come to earth and left after they recorded his coming and going?
The person and acts of Jesus were themselves all that was needed to save the world. Verses like John 12:31-32:" Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." It seems the author of John almost felt that if you needed Jesus to come back, you are basically implying his incompetence. When Jesus cried "It is finished!" on the cross in John 19:30, he meant ALL the work that he needed to accomplish on earth. John changes the traditional last words of Jesus on the cross.
That speculated author of John sure had some weird ideas! Unless of course they aren't his ideas at all but your speculations as you just admitted. You see, John, or the author of John if he were biblically literate, could not have been implying that if we yearn for Jesus' return we are implying Jesus' incompetence. Why? Because yearning for Jesus' return is part of being a Christian. All Christians yearn for Jesus' second coming. The author of John would have been aware that it's not yearning for Jesus' return that is sinful, it's the not yearning for Jesus return that is sinful.
You seen to have it all backwards.
BTW
Your suggestion seems especially weird since the author had to be aware that John's Revelation deals exclusively with Jesus' return and ends with the prayer for his return.
Revelation 1 (King James Version)
Revelation 1
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
7. behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
9I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
So the concept of criticizing the need for Jesus' return existed it wasn't the Apostle John's. Or as you would phrase it-it's highly unlikely that the Apostle John would have suggested such a thing.
This was a radical change from Synoptic Christianity, which scholars think began arriving in Alexandria somewhere in 80+C.E. Peter was put forth as the "rock" on which Jesus will build his church. The Gospel of John specifically downgrades Peter. This is the purpose of the Beloved Disciple. The author wanted to create a fictional character whose main purpose was to be a direct or indirect attack at Peter and the Gospel of Mark, and represent what the author thought to be the correct interpretation of Jesus' teachings and acts. John's Gospel would have been in competition with the Gospel of Mark in Alexandria. (John failed there, but the Gnostics in Egypt accepted it.)
Gnostic acceptance means nothing for starters Gnostics wee the ones who discarded the
OT God and put forth their own. Also, the Gospels wee never seen to be in competition with one another. They were traditionally seen as complementing one another. If indeed the author of John was out to accomplish what you say, then he miserably failed. Which of course is understandable since if one goes about hinting at things when one wants to vehemently say things outright, the none can expect to fail. Especially when what one says
goes completely contrary to what one is supposedly trying to hint at.
People who are trying to get points across, especially when the points are considered as urgent as you describe, don't go about hinting. They are very vociferous about their ideas. They choose their own venue-like writing their own book for example where they can rant galore. So it's highly unlikely from a human-nature standpoint that this rather eccentric approach was the preferred modus operandi of this supposed social religious reformer you say was the real John.
[quopte]The author of John is speculated by some to be an Alexandrian Jewish Christian. The Beloved Disciple represents this group. The Beloved or "other disciple Jesus loved" mentioned in John's Gospel is always there by Peter, giving him access to the High Priest's Courtyard, being first to the empty tomb, the first to understand that the empty tomb means Jesus was resurrected etc. John's Gospel also never calls Jesus' mother by name. She is used to show that John's version of Christianity is the true church with a solid foundation in Judaism. These verses:[/quote]
Or it could just be that the author of John wrote down exactly what John had wrote down.
Especially since writing down something contrary would have immediately exposed him as a charlatan and would have him ostracized as a scribe. The differences in addressing the mother of Jesus either by name or by calling her woman can be explained if the Apostle John was recording how Jesus referred to his mother when addressing her and not simply as a means to downgrade her status. Ever consider that Jesus might have been addressing his mother that way for a reason? To discourage what he knew would be a tendency to worship her by some of the misguided.
Furthermore, and please remember that my comments are based on MY assumption that the Bible was inspired and that the Gospels differ for the purpose of complimenting one another and not because the writers held antagonistically diametrically opposed views.,
"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."(John 19:26-27)
His mother represents faithful Judaism, which is now under the care of the Beloved Disciple. The mother and Beloved Disciple are never named because they stand for groups of people. Tools used by the author to show his true intent.
The disciple Jesus' loved might have never been named due to the writer''s modesty. Ever consider that possibility? Actually, the only intent I can see is to tell the story of what Jesus did while he was with us. Curiously, most people understand it that way.
BTW
If indeed John defended Judaism as you seem to imply, there is absolutely no biblical record in the book of Acts to support it. The only one which seems to have defended Judaism was Peter when he began demanding circumcision and shunning Gentiles. Neither Mary nor John are said to have taken his side.
Have you studied the book of Acts?
The Gospel of John would appear to be written as a challenge to the Gospel of Mark and the belief that Jesus needs to come back and finish the job...
Are you familiar with the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah? The Messiah was expected and is still expected by the Jews to restore the earth to pristine condition. So it's nothing unusual for those who saw Jesus die to expect him to finish what the Messiah is supposed to do. The writer of the Gospels were familiar with the Messianic
prophecies. Your speculation seems to be founded on some type of unfamiliarity with those prophecies. Otherwise why would you assume such a thing?
Furthermore John's Revelation goes into detail about Jesus' return and restoration of all things. Since the writer of John had to be aware of those writings, it is highly unlikely that he would presume to try to depict John as putting forth an idea that was diametrically opposed to what was attributed to John-a Messianic return and restoration.
Have you read Revelation? A reading of it provides ample reason not to propose that particular untenable view.
BTW
Difference of content, especially content which can be reconciled as complementary
to other similar works, does not necessarily constitute a challenge.
