Adam

You're not completely out-to-lunch, as the manucript itself dates to about 800 per this:
http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml
But no one thinks the original is 7th Century. The usual date is 170 (but with a possibly earlier Greek original), though sceptics date it two centuries later.
In any case, this is one of those fortunate circumstances where internal criticism and external criticism agree.

That I can support six other eyewitnesses tends to confirm Andrew as the first example. Which of the follow from this link do you want next?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....es&page=18(See Post #450)

I show the six others there in just the short posts you claim you want: John Mark, Peter, Matthew, Nicodemus, Simeon, and John. You can keep it simple and take one at a time.

Vorkosigan

Yes, you're right. We're terrible, asking you for evidence, methodology, and suchlike. How cruel of us!

You can leave anytime.

Adam

I would think you would have more reason to do so, losing so regularly now.

I have given you numerous opportunities to reply to my hypothesis (the Post #450), but all I find from you for methodology is this from your Post #462:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....nesses&page=19
Unlike you, I don't start with my conclusion first that precludes impartial methodology.

outhouse

Woa! down. 1 at a time


Lets give you the 170 date. For the original text and even go so far as to says its genuine and not redacted, for sake of arguement.


The author clearly states John is the author and mentions it multiple times.


Now, he is not the first to attribute it to John, and going off earlier attributations.



But no where is andrew mentioned as being John

Adam

You missed this part:
It even explains that John's name was to go on it, though other apostles were involved, and only Andrew's name is mentioned.
No other author I have suggested was an apostle (i. e. Nicodemus and John Mark).

Vorkosigan

You're a card, Adam. As I said, pick up some books on historical methodology.

Vorkosigan

outhouse

you took it completely out of context, im sorry bud.

but it is very clear that the, who ever wrote the original source, intended John to be the author

andrew is telling john to write it in his own name.





now i know you did some research on this, and I didnt miss andrews name either, BUT you should now that this piece was in a state of decay making the translation very difficult. we also lost some meaning from greek to its current language, making your intention of word play, really, impossible.

its very clear the author viewed jogn as the author, and all from earlier FALSE attributations :constern01:

Sheshbazzar

One wonders how you can possibly parse this paragraph so as to come up with the idea that it intended to indicate Andrew as being the writer, or even a writer ?

a. 'In the same night it was revealed to Andrew,'
-Andrew has a night revelation-

b. ...'one of the apostles'
-referring back to Andrew as being that apostle-

c. ...' that, whilst all were to go over (it),'
-all of the apostles were to review it-

d. ...' John in his own name should write everything down.'
-JOHN is to write -"everything"- down and in his own name; 'JOHN'.

There is nothing to be found within this paragraph that even suggests that Andrew is the author of that writing, or of any other writing.

Andrew's part within this paragraph is limited to;

1. Andrew having a night revelation. -with that night being 'the same night' that other preceeding events have taken place.

2. Andrew being one of the apostles.'

3. Andrew in his position as being one of the apostles will participate in the apostolic review of a document to be produced.

4. that by this revelation to Andrew, and hence by him to the other apostles, a (here unidentified, and a as yet unwritten) writing should be produced by JOHN.

Nothing within this even suggests Andrew as being an author.

Andrew is rather the -message bearer- conveying to all, that JOHN should write -'EVERYTHING'-.

-and that of all other apostles (including Andrew) should review whatever -'EVERYTHING'- it was that JOHN would write down.
_Not that they needed to alter nor to edit what JOHN would write, but rather that all apostles be made equally aware of its complete contents, as produced.
That all might be of one mind, and of one accord.
(see below)

Andrew writes nothing. although it is possible in review, that Andrew or any other apostle might make editorial suggestions. The writing would still be Johns.

HOWEVER, qualifying this possibility of any editorial emendations to JOHN's writing being introduced by other apostles, would be a far greater concern among these apostles. If these men were near as religious, as serious minded, and as Holy Spirit guided as all religious tradition and teaching has always held that they were;
It would be understood by all of the apostles from the onset, that whatever JOHN so wrote, it would be written by JOHN under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.
For any man to question, or to attempt to edit, or suggest to amend what JOHN had so produced would be tantamount to questioning the word and will of God Almighty, and to calling into very question brother John's possession of the Holy Spirit, and whether brother John was indeed a Spirit guided Saint (khsed).
Which if he weren't, he would not have been so elected.

No, it is very highly doubtful that anything JOHN ever wrote ever came from Andrew, or that Andrew for his part ever in any manner altered even so much as a single letter of what brother JOHN had written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.





.

Vorkosigan

The whole thing is a late-developing fiction, of course, out of the same impulse as Adam's ironically: to assign the development of the text to someone in the tradition to make it more legitimate.

Sheshbazzar

I do have more to say on this matter, but will wait for Adam to chime in and attempt to discredit or to refute what I wrote above.