Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:04:18.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Observations favoring the Palestinian Origin of the Gospel of John

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

W. F. Albright
W. F. Albright
Affiliation:
American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last year or two the Gospel of John has received unusual attention from English and American scholars, particularly with respect to its place of origin and language of composition. Several scholars, notably Burney, Montgomery, and Torrey have independently reached the conclusion that the book was composed by an author who either spoke and thought Aramaic or actually composed his work in that tongue. Burney contends that the writer was born and raised in Palestine, where he knew Jesus in his youth, and that he later went to Antioch, where he composed the book in Aramaic, or at least in a Greek which constantly reflects his Aramaic thought. Montgomery supposes that the writer was a Jew who gained his life-experience in Palestine during the first half of the first century, and who thought in Aramaic, though he leaves open the question as to whether he actually wrote in that language. According to Torrey, the book was written in Aramaic by a Palestinian author.

Type
Notes
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1924 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922.Google Scholar

2 The Origin of the Gospel according to St. John, Philadelphia, 1923.Google Scholar

3 Harvard Theological Review, vol. XVI, 1923, pp. 305–344.Google Scholar

4 Cf. American Journal of Semitic Languages (AJSL), vol. XXXV, pp. 161–195, especially pp. 173 ff.; vol. XXXIX, pp. 22 ff.

5 Cf. AJSL XXXIX, p. 29, n. 1, and Boissier, La situation du paradis terrestre. Geneva, 1916, pp. 18 f.Google Scholar

6 Cf. AJSL XXXVI, pp. 261 ff.; XXXIX, pp. 28 f.

7 Nöldeke Festschrift, pp. 959–967.

8 Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. XIV, pp. 58 f.; AJSL XXXVI, p. 293.

9 Cf. AJSL XXXVI, pp. 292 f.

10 Harvard Theological Review, vol. XV, 1922, pp. 41–61.Google Scholar

11 Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. XXXIX, pp. 143–151 (cf. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, vol. VII, p. 79).

12 Cf. Dalman, Orte und Wege2. pp. 189 f.

13 Text of LXX, B. That ‘Shiloh’ of the Hebrew is erroneous is proved by other clear statements in Jeremiah to the effect that Shiloh was then in ruins, a datum sustained by Aage Schmidt's soundings on the site (cf. Bulletin of the American Schools, No. 9, pp. 10–11).

14 Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine, vol. II, p. 234.

15 ‘Ainûn goes back to a Hebrew *‘Ainôn, from ‘ain, ‘fountain.’

16 Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. III, pp. 36–40. The material will be given in greatly extended form in the Annual of the American Schools, vol. IV–V.