Come on Kosta...John is very consistent
Is he? Recognized scholars and theologians say otherwise. Professor Robert M. Grant, a New Testament scholar at the U. of Chicago for the last 30 years says, for example, scholars have recognized that " it is not in order as it stands," that "it has been interpolated by an editor" and that "either the editor or the author made use of earlier sources." How can that be very consistent?
Professor Grant [A Historical Introduction to the New Testament] goes into specific details to show that it is not in order with several examples, starting with:
Proof that the Gospel is not in order is provided quite tellingly by Rudolf Bultmann.(Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [ed. 3, 1959], III, 840-1.) (a) According to John 6:1, ‘after this Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee’; but according to the preceding chapter he was in Jerusalem. If chapter 5 follows chapter 6, everything falls into place.
he then proceeds to note that "John 7:15-24 is incomprehensible in its present location." He says "it belongs with the discussion in chapter 5, perhaps at the end; and in this case 7:1-14 goes with 7:25ff."
Furthermore, he finds that "John 10:19-21 must be the ending of a longer section dealing with opening the eyes of a blind man; it therefore goes with chapter 9, while 10:1-18 goes with 10:27-9."
Continuing, "John 12:44-50 has no relation to its context; it too goes with chapter 9" and "Something is wrong with the order of John 13-17, for 14:30-1 leads directly to the passion narrative (‘arise, let us go hence’) although three chapters of discourses follow. Chapters 15-17 must therefore originally have preceded chapter 14 (or, rather, 13:36-14:31)," and so on.
Grant further mentions that Bultmann recognizes "late glosses" apparently added to the Gospel for a variety of reasons probably in the early 2nd century. He finds "that the presence of glosses is often indicated by their being omitted in some manuscripts or versions. These glosses include John 7:53-8:11 (omitted by all ancient witnesses), 5:4 (omitted by most early manuscripts)" and some phrases such as 6:23 when the Lord gave thanks, 13:10 except the feet, 14:30 many things, 16:16 because I go to the Father."
These changes had the purpose of "making the work harmonize with church life and with the Church’s gospels." The proof of an "editor" is "provided first of all by noticing the most obvious additions he has made. The Gospel clearly comes to an end in 20:30-1; we must therefore assume that chapter 21 is an addition. Furthermore, the poetic style of the prologue is interrupted by prosaic verses which refer to John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15; cf. 1:30). Therefore we can go on to discover other additions which break the formal continuity of the book or produce contradictions."
How can this, and a preponderance of other evidence cited in his book equal consistency?