FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2001, 07:19 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bede:
Any comments on (in)dependence on the synoptics would also be welcome. As it is so different from the other Gospels it is prima facie independent so what reasons are there for thinking it is dependent on Mark or other works?</font>
Hi Bede. I believe the statements of the early Church Fathers as I believe they were in a much better position to know that we are today. Therefore I believe that John was aware of Matthew, Mark and Luke and conciously chose to cover areas of Jesus' ministry not covered by the synoptics. But as far as the narratives which he shares with the synoptics go, I do not think he copied any parts of his Gospel from the synoptics.
 
Old 05-14-2001, 02:33 AM   #22
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi all,

I have always thought that the way that GJohn has been written of by critical scholars the best example of the double standard that exists between examining the the New Testament and most other ancient history.

Consider Ron's arguments:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. There is no evidence to suggest that John could speak Greek. (As a native of Galilee, he more than likely spoke Aramaic.)</font>
This is firstly an argument from silence and secondly, for the reasons given by Tercel, utterly irrelevent.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.</font>
What makes a common fisherman stupid? Remember, that is what we a discussing here, not literacy. Learning a new language, especially ancient Greek, is what many adults do today. Either Ron is claiming that he thinks John was too stupid to do this or he's again making irrelvant points.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.</font>
Not confirmed, but stated. Glad you think Acts is a reliable source but I fail to see how you can equate lack of education with being too stupid to learn. John became a leader of the church (from Paul so definitely a historical fact) and so we hope must have had a bit upstairs.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality.</font>
So a man who has a temper in his teens must be a psycho when he reaches eighty. Be serious. Even if we assume the sons of thunder title means what you think it implies it tells us little. Also, the late Cardinal Hume wrote fine meditive prose and was known to have a foul temper.

Moving on from irrelevancies, let's look at the real evidence. By the wy, I accept that ch21 is a later appendix and that the Gospel we have today was redacted by a disciple of John (probably the Eldar mentioned by the fathers).

- The Gospel claims to be an eye witness at the crucifixion;
- The appendix is an early identifier of the author;
- The early church Fathers are unanimous that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle. Ireaneus says Polycarp, a disciple of John himself, said John wrote it so this isn't just hearsay but a report from a named source.
- John betrays knowledge of pre-revolt Jerusalem such as the portico and pavement. The five alcoves of the portico produced a lot of bull from scholars thinking it was symbolic until it got dug up.
- Unlike the synoptics, John knows there were no pharisees in Galilee in Jesus's time and is careful never to place them there.
- He gets the date of the crucifixion correct whereas the synoptics get it wrong (it was Nisan 14, not 15). Astronmical calculations published in the peer reviewed journal Nature in 1983 have confirmed this.
- GJohn has a small vocabulary and is written in simple Greek as befits someone writing in a second language.
- Once thought to be Greek, the DSS have placed the theology of John firmly into a Jewish context.

This much evidence for the authorship of a secular source would convince anyone but the standards are higher for the NT. However, it is good to see that atheist classicist Robin Lane Fox is objective enough to relaise that GJohn is by the apostle.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 05-14-2001, 03:27 AM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

I am completely convinced that I did not write the gospel of John!!!

Hey, I probably should have been on this Forum. I just love to criticize the Bible!

Anyway some of my stuff is on Feedback Discussion re: the Bible...also other Forums here...also on my web site (of course...I mean, why would i discuss trivia there??? )

take care
Helen

 
Old 05-14-2001, 04:19 PM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
I would say that John wrote the Gospel of John. But when I say "wrote" I don't me he was the one who literally took quill to papyrus and wrote the words. I mean that he was in the greatest part responsible for the content.

I know of very few people who think John of Zebedee wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John. The fact is, and will probably remain so, no one knows who wrote the book.

Quote:
Originally posted by rodahi:
There are good reasons for supposing that John the son of Zebedee WAS NOT the writer of "John."
1. There is no evidence to suggest that John could speak Greek. (As a native of Galilee, he more than likely spoke Aramaic.)</font>
Tercel: Just because John could not speak Greek in 30AD hardly means that he can't do so 30-60 years later (or whenever you believe John was written).

I have no idea when the narrative was written, nor does anyone else. I find it highly unlikely that a Galilean fisherman could have written "John."

Tercel: 2nd Peter is often accepted as written by Peter because of the such bad Greek of its composition.

I don't accept the idea that Simon Peter wrote 2 Peter.

Tercel: If we can believe that Peter managed to learn enough Greek to write 2nd Peter before his death, we can surely stomach the idea that John learnt at least some Greek in his life - which was supposedly 40 or years longer than Peter's.

I don't think a disciple of Jesus wrote either NT work.

Tercel: Are we also to suppose that John had no help available to help him write a Gospel?

I have no idea what was available to early followers of Jesus, but one thing is clear: His original disciples were not known as writers.

Tercel: Come on: He was one of the Apostles and great leaders of the early Church - if he had asked for help with his Greek in the composition of a Gospel he would have gotten it.

You know this to be fact? How so?

Tercel: Even assuming he spoke no Greek whatsoever, it is just as plausible that he could dictate in Aramaic and have it translated.

Have you read the narrative? What is implausible is the idea that a Galilean peasant could have conceived of words containing such highly-developed theology.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.</font>
Tercel: Again what is to stop him using a scribe to write what he dictates? And what is to stop him getting help from other leaders of the Church with his writing?

Where is your evidence?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality.</font>
Tercel: Could you give specific examples please?

"When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, 'Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?' Lk. 9:51-54

Tercel: Personally I envisage the composition of John as something of a group effort. John along with a few other head members of the Church would have written it together.

No one knows.

Tercel: Since John would have made the greatest contribution to content they understandably entitled it the Gospel according to John.

This is conjecture.

[b]Tercel: Thus I think that things like this:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">John 21:24 (NIV)
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.</font>

were part of the original composition and were the writing of the Church to which John belongs. In this verse they are endorsing John's tesimony.
Sounds like propaganda to me.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 14, 2001).]
 
Old 05-14-2001, 06:19 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post


Amos;
Hi Offa, John the Baptist was beheaded much like Seneca
committed suicide. Both are true events but neither were
physical events. Seneca's tragedies are failed 'divine
comedies' and since there was nothing divine about such
tragedies they were called Senecan tragedies. Macbeth is a
good one but called a Shakesperean tragedy because Divine
comedies are not recognized in England (and therefore also
not its counterpart). Titus Andronicus is a detailed
account of such a tragedy.

I regret that I have not investigated Seneca's writings. I shall
in the future, I hope. I have to find out what a divine comedy
is. I love MacBeth ... the one about Burnam woods approaching
the castle and "bubble bubble boil and trouble". I need to
reference Titus Andronicus ... cannot recall him?

Have you ever watched "Claudius"? He talks about this witch
called Sophia and I tried to read Sophia but it seems like
reading the bible all over again.

I am wary of you Amos!

Thanks, offa
 
Old 05-14-2001, 08:29 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by offa:

Amos;
Hi Offa, John the Baptist was beheaded much like Seneca
committed suicide. Both are true events but neither were
physical events. Seneca's tragedies are failed 'divine
comedies' and since there was nothing divine about such
tragedies they were called Senecan tragedies. Macbeth is a
good one but called a Shakesperean tragedy because Divine
comedies are not recognized in England (and therefore also
not its counterpart). Titus Andronicus is a detailed
account of such a tragedy.

I regret that I have not investigated Seneca's writings. I shall
in the future, I hope. I have to find out what a divine comedy
is. I love MacBeth ... the one about Burnam woods approaching
the castle and "bubble bubble boil and trouble". I need to
reference Titus Andronicus ... cannot recall him?

Have you ever watched "Claudius"? He talks about this witch
called Sophia and I tried to read Sophia but it seems like
reading the bible all over again.

I am wary of you Amos!

Thanks, offa
</font>
It is really a shame that I do not read more but ever since I needed reading glasses I lost interest. Claudius and Sophia sounds good but no I have not.

The great give away in Macbeth: "We scorched the snake, not killed it! Now we'll be subject to the malice of her former tooth."

Remember here that MacBeth wanted to be king hereafter (go to heaven) but ends up with the unresolved paradox "sinful yet saved" because the snake had not been killed and can therefore not be raised.

This concept is loaded, of course, and is what all the commotion was about when Jesus was burried and his tomb guarded for three days. Had Jesus escaped death, and just scorched the serpent like MacBeth, he would have been the "final imposter" of Mt. 27:64 and his life would have been a tragedy and committed suicide like Seneca and MacBeth. The scorching of the serpent is only evidence because the primary cause of this tragedy was the premature rebirth of Macbeth who was from his mothers womb untimely ripped. Nasty writer Shakespeare was and not really my favorite but I use him because he is best known to most people.

My favorite of all is Coriolanus because it juxtaposes Macbeth.

Amos
 
Old 05-14-2001, 10:18 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: I would say that John wrote the Gospel of John. But when I say "wrote" I don't me he was the one who literally took quill to papyrus and wrote the words. I mean that he was in the greatest part responsible for the content.
Rodahi: I know of very few people who think John of Zebedee wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John. The fact is, and will probably remain so, no one knows who wrote the book.</font>
Can the question of who wrote each book be settled by a vote? You know very few people who think that John wrote the GoJ, and I know a lot who do... wow, so what?
What consitutes "knowing"? What do you mean when you say that "no one knows who wrote the book"? Either you mean that no one is 100% absolutely sure that they are correct, in which case you can stop stating the obvious. Or you mean a belief beyond reasonable doubt, in which case you're wrong because I belive John wrote the GoJ.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Just because John could not speak Greek in 30AD hardly means that he can't do so 30-60 years later (or whenever you believe John was written).

Rodahi:I have no idea when the narrative was written, nor does anyone else. I find it highly unlikely that a Galilean fisherman could have written "John."</font>
You have no idea when the narrative was written? Surely you agree it must have been written between 30AD and 150AD?
"nor does anyone else". Is this like the "no one knows"? I'm getting sick of this: please stop making statements which either go without saying or are obviously untrue.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: 2nd Peter is often accepted as written by Peter because of the such bad Greek of its composition.

Rodahi:I don't accept the idea that Simon Peter wrote 2 Peter.</font>
Fine. But you recognise what I'm saying as true, yes?
You are entirely entitled to your opinions. All I'm doing here is laying out my objections to your reasons why John couldn't have written the GoJ.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Are we also to suppose that John had no help available to help him write a Gospel?

I have no idea what was available to early followers of Jesus, but one thing is clear: His original disciples were not known as writers.</font>
But you are the one making the positive statement here: 'There are good reasons for supposing that John the son of Zebedee WAS NOT the writer of "John."'.
The burden of proof sits on you to prove that these are in fact "good reasons". If you accept that John may well have had access to help then the reason that he couldn't do it by himself is rather useless.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Come on: He was one of the Apostles and great leaders of the early Church - if he had asked for help with his Greek in the composition of a Gospel he would have gotten it.

Rodahi:You know this to be fact? How so?</font>
I do not "know this to be a fact". Again what exactly do you mean by a "fact" or "know"? I believe that it should be beyond reasonable doubt to most people that John could have obtained help if he needed it:
Can you see any Christian turning down an invitation from a leader of the Church to assist in writing an account of their great leader? I can't.
Can you believe that in such an apparently diverse group as the early Christian Church there was no one with the required skills to compose and write John's Gospel? I can't.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Even assuming he spoke no Greek whatsoever, it is just as plausible that he could dictate in Aramaic and have it translated.

Rodahi:Have you read the narrative? What is implausible is the idea that a Galilean peasant could have conceived of words containing such highly-developed theology.</font>
By "Have you read the narrative?" are you asking if I've read John???
How is John's high level of theology implausible? Paul also has a high level of theology and probably wrote about 40 years prior to John. Or is it John's lack of education the problem? Uneducated people can still use big words and understand them. It doesn't take a university degree to use your native language to a full extent. John's three years or so with Jesus and subsequent leadership of the Church for 60 or so years would surely have given him as good a grasp of theology as anyone else in the world, perhaps better, no matter what his original education.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rodahi: 4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality.

Tercel: Could you give specific examples please?

Rodahi: "When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, 'Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?' Lk. 9:51-54</font>
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. What evidence is there that "the writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality"? Furthermore is there really a good reason why John should still have a temper 60 years or so later. People change. John is serving in a leadership position in the Christian Church. Do you think it is unreasonable to assume that John's angry tendancies decreased as he lived his life as an example of the Christian faith? Is it also unreasonable to assume that old age would have no effect on the matter?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Personally I envisage the composition of John as something of a group effort. John along with a few other head members of the Church would have written it together.

Rodahi:No one knows.</font>
There's that "knows" again. What exactly are you trying to prove by this? Is it just something you say in reply when you've got nothing else to say and want to look like you're saying something?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Since John would have made the greatest contribution to content they understandably entitled it the Gospel according to John.

Rodahi:This is conjecture.</font>
Well DUH!. I did begin the paragraph with "Personally I envisage..." just in case a really gullible reader might mistake it for absolute proven fact.

-Tercel
 
Old 05-15-2001, 05:29 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: I would say that John wrote the Gospel of John. But when I say "wrote" I don't me he was the one who literally took quill to papyrus and wrote the words. I mean that he was in the greatest part responsible for the content.
Rodahi: I know of very few people who think John of Zebedee wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John. The fact is, and will probably remain so, no one knows who wrote the book.</font>
Tercel: Can the question of who wrote each book be settled by a vote? You know very few people who think that John wrote the GoJ, and I know a lot who do... wow, so what?

Great. Still, no one knows who wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John.

Tercel: What consitutes "knowing"? What do you mean when you say that "no one knows who wrote the book"? Either you mean that no one is 100% absolutely sure that they are correct, in which case you can stop stating the obvious. Or you mean a belief beyond reasonable doubt, in which case you're wrong because I belive John wrote the GoJ.

What you think you know "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not qualify as evidence. It qualifies as what you think you know.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Just because John could not speak Greek in 30AD hardly means that he can't do so 30-60 years later (or whenever you believe John was written).

Rodahi:I have no idea when the narrative was written, nor does anyone else. I find it highly unlikely that a Galilean fisherman could have written "John."</font>
Tercel: You have no idea when the narrative was written? Surely you agree it must have been written between 30AD and 150AD?

I agree the narrative was likely written after Jesus' execution and before the end of the second century CE.

Tercel: "nor does anyone else". Is this like the "no one knows"? I'm getting sick of this: please stop making statements which either go without saying or are obviously untrue.

No one knows when the narrative was written. If you know someone who does, then name him, so we can contact him/her and find out definitively.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: 2nd Peter is often accepted as written by Peter because of the such bad Greek of its composition.

Rodahi:I don't accept the idea that Simon Peter wrote 2 Peter.</font>
Tercel: Fine. But you recognise what I'm saying as true, yes?

No, I don't agree with your "recognition."

Tercel: You are entirely entitled to your opinions.

And so are you, Tercel.

Tercel: All I'm doing here is laying out my objections to your reasons why John couldn't have written the GoJ.

I don't find your objections to be reasonable.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Are we also to suppose that John had no help available to help him write a Gospel?

I have no idea what was available to early followers of Jesus, but one thing is clear: His original disciples were not known as writers.</font>
Tercel: But you are the one making the positive statement here: 'There are good reasons for supposing that John the son of Zebedee WAS NOT the writer of "John."'.
The burden of proof sits on you to prove that these are in fact "good reasons".


I gave "good reasons" why I don't think John of Zebedee wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John. I don't have to "prove" anything.

Tercel: If you accept that John may well have had access to help then the reason that he couldn't do it by himself is rather useless.

I don't know who wrote the narrative, but I see good reasons for thinking John of Zebedee was not the writer.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Come on: He was one of the Apostles and great leaders of the early Church - if he had asked for help with his Greek in the composition of a Gospel he would have gotten it.

Rodahi:You know this to be fact? How so?</font>
Tercel" I do not "know this to be a fact". Again what exactly do you mean by a "fact" or "know"?

A fact is something that can be verified.

Tercel: I believe that it should be beyond reasonable doubt to most people that John could have obtained help if he needed it:
Can you see any Christian turning down an invitation from a leader of the Church to assist in writing an account of their great leader? I can't.


You make several assumptions here.
1. You assume that John wrote or wished to write something. Where is your evidence?
2. You assume that someone would wish to help John of Zebedee write something. Where is you evidence?
3. You assume that John of Zebedee would ask someone to help him write. Where is your evidence?
4. You assume that John of Zebedee was a leader of the Church. Where is your evidence?
5. You assume that John could formulate highly-developed theological concepts. Where is your evidence.

Tercel: Can you believe that in such an apparently diverse group as the early Christian Church there was no one with the required skills to compose and write John's Gospel? I can't.

Someone obviously wrote the narrative, but no one knows who.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Even assuming he spoke no Greek whatsoever, it is just as plausible that he could dictate in Aramaic and have it translated.

Rodahi:Have you read the narrative? What is implausible is the idea that a Galilean peasant could have conceived of words containing such highly-developed theology.</font>
Tercel: By "Have you read the narrative?" are you asking if I've read John???

Yes. We are discussing that narrative.

Tercel: How is John's high level of theology implausible? Paul also has a high level of theology and probably wrote about 40 years prior to John. Or is it John's lack of education the problem? Uneducated people can still use big words and understand them.

1. It is irrelevant what Paul wrote. We are discussing who wrote the narrative.
2. You can certainly believe what you wish. I find it incredible that an illiterate Galilean fisherman could have written or spoken the words attributed to Jesus in the narrative.

Tercel: It doesn't take a university degree to use your native language to a full extent. John's three years or so with Jesus and subsequent leadership of the Church for 60 or so years would surely have given him as good a grasp of theology as anyone else in the world, perhaps better, no matter what his original education.

You continue to make assumptions.
1. How do you know that John of Zebedee wished to make full use of his native language or that he did so?
2. No one knows how long John of Zebedee was with Jesus.
3. No one knows if John of Zebedee was a leader of the Church, and, further, that he lived a long life.
4. No one knows how much of what Jesus actually said was understood by John of Zebedee.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rodahi: 4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality.

Tercel: Could you give specific examples please?

Rodahi: "When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, 'Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?' Lk. 9:51-54</font>
Tercel: I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. What evidence is there that "the writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality"?

The narrative attributed to John was probably written by a peaceful type of person. John of Zebedee appears to have been just the opposite.

Tercel: Furthermore is there really a good reason why John should still have a temper 60 years or so later. People change.

I don't know how long John of Zebedee lived, nor do you. But, even if he lived to be a thousand, that does not mean he became a peaceful person.

Tercel: John is serving in a leadership position in the Christian Church.

How do you KNOW this?

Tercel: Do you think it is unreasonable to assume that John's angry tendancies decreased as he lived his life as an example of the Christian faith?

I think it is unreasonable to speculate about what John did or did not do. BTW, being a Jesus follower would not necessarily have made John any less angry or violent. Look at the behavior of Jesus.

Tercel: Is it also unreasonable to assume that old age would have no effect on the matter?

No one knows if John of Zebedee lived to old age. Even if he did, that does not prove he was not a violent person.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Personally I envisage the composition of John as something of a group effort. John along with a few other head members of the Church would have written it together.

Rodahi:No one knows.</font>
Tercel: There's that "knows" again. What exactly are you trying to prove by this? Is it just something you say in reply when you've got nothing else to say and want to look like you're saying something?

Take it anyway you want to.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: Since John would have made the greatest contribution to content they understandably entitled it the Gospel according to John.

Rodahi:This is conjecture.</font>
Tercel: Well DUH!. I did begin the paragraph with "Personally I envisage..." just in case a really gullible reader might mistake it for absolute proven fact.

If you wish to discuss the narrative and speculate on who wrote it, that is fine. Don't use the word "DUH!" in the future in our discussions if you want me to take you seriously.


 
Old 05-15-2001, 10:41 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bede:
Hi all,

This has come up a few times around the boards and I thought I'd give it a thread of its own. The question is:

Who wrote the Gospel of John and what evidence is there for your view?

Meta =&gt;O that's easy. The Beloved Diciiple wrote it.

Any comments on (in)dependence on the synoptics would also be welcome. As it is so different from the other Gospels it is prima facie independent so what reasons are there for thinking it is dependent on Mark or other works?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
</font>
 
Old 05-16-2001, 12:08 AM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: Personally I envisage the composition of John as something of a group effort. John along with a few other head members of the Church would have written it together. Since John would have made the greatest contribution to content they understandably entitled it the Gospel according to John.

Rodahi: This is conjecture.

Tercel: Well DUH!. I did begin the paragraph with "Personally I envisage..." just in case a really gullible reader might mistake it for absolute proven fact.

Rodahi: If you wish to discuss the narrative and speculate on who wrote it, that is fine. Don't use the word "DUH!" in the future in our discussions if you want me to take you seriously.</font>
Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do?

I'm still confused with this "no one knows" business. There are about 5 "no one knows" in Rodahi's last post, does anyone else understand what Rodahi means when he says this?

And strangest of all, all Rodahi's points against John being the author are equally refutable by "no one knows" and "You make several assumptions".
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.