quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anderson: Note how this passage from Mark says nothing about John's writing ability.

It says he was a Galilean fisherman. It does not say he was a writer.

Anderson: But in reply, might I put this back on you and ask how we know ancient fishermen were unable to write?

Perhaps, we will never know for sure how many of the Galilean fisherman of John's day could read write, but we do have a clear statement in the NT itself (I do not make any claims about its reliability) saying that John was uneducated, i.e., illiterate. See Acts 4:13.

Anderson: Also, none of the NT writers presume (or even claim to be) "professional" writers.

Let's deal with the writer of "John," not the other writers. Even if the writer was not a professional, he was well-educated, understood the Greek language very well, and expressed himself using good Greek.

Anderson: Even so, when looking at professional writers of our own day, one can think of several examples of unschooled and otherwise "nobody" sort of people who might be considered "dumb" or socially inept. But still they write works which we consider brilliant. For example, I'm not even sure Stephen King even went to college--I know he never took any writing classes! In any event, this objection is hardly proof that John didn't write the gospel attributed to him.

This is an example of a false analogy. Stephen King is a modern writer who graduated from the University of Maine (Orono, 1970) with a Bachelor of Science degree in English. He was a prolific writer of stories before entering college. John of Zebedee was an ancient, illiterate Galilean fisherman. There is no evidence suggesting that he ever learned to read or write before he died.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anderson: The verse in question reads, "When [the rulers and elders] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." This says nothing about John's reading and writing ability--it simply means he didn't get professional schooling.

The KJV reads as follows: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned [Greek=agrammatos] and ignorant [Greek=idiotes] , they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

From Strong's:
1. agrammatos-illiterate; without learning
2. idiotes-unlearned; illiterate; unskilled in any art

According to Bart D. Ehrman, "[T]he book of Acts suggests that John, the son of Zebedee, was uneducated and unable to read and write (the literal meaning of the Greek phrase 'uneducated and ordinary'; Acts 4:13)." The New Testament, P. 153.

Anderson: But the crucial point is what sort of schooling? When looking at it in its societal context, we realize that what the elders are referring to here is rabbinical school--as at least one apologist has pointed out.

I think the context of the passage suggests that the writer understood Peter and John to be uneducated and ignorant; it was their confidence that astonished the hearers.

Anderson: Peter and John had simply never been trained as rabbis.

Apparently, they had not been trained in anything but net-making and fishing.

Anderson: Also, don't forget that these people were "astonished"--in other words, Peter and John were so eloquent despite their lack of schooling that the Sanhedrin was taken aback!

Read the passage again. The hearers were impressed with the "boldness" of Peter and John, not their "eloquence."

Anderson: This verse might actually SUPPORT the authenticity of Johannine authorship!

You have simply misunderstood the passage.

Anderson: A couple other points to ponder: John mentions in his gospel that he is known to the high priest (18:15), which may suggest some level of literacy.

I have already said that the writer of the narrative was a well-educated person who appeared to be a native speaker of Greek. The problem is that we do not know who the writer was.
On the other hand, John of Zebedee was a common, illiterate fisherman, not a writer.

Anderson: Plus, while the Sanhedrin may easily be able to tell the amount of educational training the two apostles had from their speech, how could anyone tell from such a speech whether they could read or write?

It is the writer of Acts who says that Peter and John were illiterate, not the Sanhedrin.

Anderson: I'm afraid too much is being read into the text in this objection.

Not at all, but you are entitled to your opinion.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 19, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anderson: Whoa now--again, I feel compelled to throw this one back to you. The reference for this is Mark 3:17. But nowhere in that verse or in the surrounding verses do we see that Jesus gave them this name b/c they were hot-tempered. In fact, no reason is given at all in the text. Instead of hot-tempered, for all we know, it could mean that James and John were so enthusiastic and excited about following Jesus that He gave them such a nickname as a compliment.

We read in the RSV, "And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired...to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges, that is sons of thunder." Mk. 3:13-17.

From Strong's:

Boanerges-The name seems to denote the fiery and destructive zeal that may be likened to a thunder storm.

Anderson: Certainly we see such enthusiasm when they get ahead of themselves and request that sinners be scorched with fire from heaven (a very zealous and, to them, righteous request in light of the OT story of Elijah), that they ask to be seated at Jesus' left and right hands in glory, and of course from when John is named the "disciple Jesus loved."

John may very well have been self-righteous and zealous, but that does not excuse his anger and use of violence toward those who differed with his opinion.

Anderson: Again, you may have unintentionally given another proof FOR the authorship of John, instead of against.

Not at all, Anderson.

Anderson: Plus, let's look at the context of this naming. Jesus is designating who is going to be in His inner circle of 12 disciples--hardly a time to be calling His friends degrading names.

Obviously, Jesus wasn't the most tactful of men. He called Peter "Satan" on at least one occasion. So, it is not surprising that he gave the name "Boanerges" to two brothers who were quick to anger and sometimes violent.

Anderson: In fact, we see the Zebedees given this name right after Simon is given the name "The Rock." From this we may reasonably assert that whatever "Sons of Thunder" means, it was probably quite a compliment.

You seem to like giving the disciples "compliments." Was it a compliment when Jesus called Peter "Satan?"

Anderson: One last thing on your assertion that the author of John appears too peaceful to be the same one named a Son of Thunder--aside from being a rather weak suggestion (do you have any justification for it?), don't forget that if John did write this gospel, he more than likely did it some 30-60 years later.

My point still stands. John of Zebedee certainly had a violent side and was given a nickname that fit his attitude. The writer of the Fourth narrative DOES NOT seem to have a violent attitude. All one must do is read the narrative to confirm this.

Anderson: As an old man, in other words. Of course, people become much calmer and peaceful in old age than as youth (and during the ministry of Jesus, John is estimated to be anywhere from 15-25 years old).

We don't know who wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John. The date and place of composition are also unknown. It is nothing more than conjecture to say that so-and-so was this age or that when he wrote the narrative.

Anderson: My own father, for instance, was a type of high school bully in his youth. But now in his 50s (35-40 years later), he's one of the most laid back, mellow people I know. I credit your objection for its originality, but I'm afraid it doesn't hold water under scrutiny.

It "holds water" for reasonable people. BTW, I am glad your father has mellowed out, but what does that have to do with John of Zebedee or the writer of the narrative? For example, where is your evidence that the writer (or writers) of the narrative was old when he wrote it? Where is your evidence suggesting that John of Zebedee was ever anything but an angry and violent Galilean fisherman who could neither read nor write? Where is your evidence suggesting that he wrote anything at all?

rodahi

Anderson: Just a few other leftover items I would like to suggest in favor of Johannine authorship:

1. As we would expect, the gospel shows much familiarity with the geography of Galilee, Jerusalem, etc.

There is evidence that there were several writers, over time, who contributed to the narrative that appears in the NT. It is certainly possible that one of those contributers knew the region or knew someone who did. Just because a writer was familiar with Palestine, it does not follow that he must have been a disciple of Jesus.

Anderson: 2. When the apostle refers to John the Baptist in his gospel, he simply refers to him as the single name, "John," whereas others are referred to by double names--Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus, and Judas Iscariot, for example. (Also note that the other 3 gospels refer to him as "John the Baptist.")

What is the relevance of this? BTW, Jesus did not always refer to the individual disciples as "double names."

Anderson: 3. The author of John uses professional fishing terms--just what we would expect from the apostle John. For example, he uses a very distinct technical name for cooked fish that was part of his trade.

Would you please list all the "professional fishing terms" the writer uses. Would only John of Zebedee be familiar with "a very distinct technical" term used for cooked fish? Surely not.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bede:
By the way, 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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I believe this was mentioned by Rodahi as well.

I can't think of anything I've read yet that states anything about the 21st chapter of GJohn being an "appendix" or "later addition".

I can't even find anything about this in the apparatus of the UBS4 or NA27, and P66 (ca. 175 A.D.) goes up through GJohn 21:9 before ending due to fragmentation of the MS (which means there was more).

Would you or Rodahi mind providing some sources for calling the 21st Chapter of GJohn an "appendix" or "later addition"?


Here are a few quotes with emphasis added:

"We have already seen that the prologue to the Gospel [of John] appears to have been derived from a source, possibly an early Christian hymn to Christ. Something similar can be said of the last chapter [21], in which Jesus makes a final appearance to several of his disciples after his resurrection (he had already appeared to them in chapter 20). An earlier edition of the Gospel appears to have ended with the words I have just quoted from 20:30-31, which certainly sound like the ending of a book. The final chaper was added later to record one other incident of significance to the author." Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, P. 145.

In Harper's Bible Dictionary, the following appears at the end of an outline of the narrative: "IV. Appendix: Jesus' appearance by Sea of Galilee to Peter and others ([John] 21:1-25)" P. 497.

"That ch. 21 [of John] represents a supplement is indisputable, for 21:30f. is clearly the conclusion of the original Gospel. The only question is whether this supplement stems from the evangelists or from a strange hand. (The commentator goes on to offer evidence showing that the "supplement" is by a strange hand)." Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, P. 148.

"What is the relation of chapter 21 [of John] to the rest of the gospel? That it is an appendix is obvious. The main body of the book closes with 20:31. But is the appendix an afterthought by the same author--if that is the case, obviously its concluding verses (21:24,25) must be by a different hand and in the form of an early gloss--or by a different author who felt impelled to add the additional material?" Morton Enslin, Christian Beginnings, P. 448

"It does not appear that the text of the Gospel of John as it is extant in the oldest manuscripts has preserved the text of the autograph without changes. John 21, though belonging to the older stages of the transmission of the text, is certainly a later appendix." Kelmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 246.

"There is a passage in the 21st chapter of the fourth Gospel--a chapter added later than the rest by some early editor..." F. C. Conybeare, The Origins of Christianity, P. 78.

"The episode related in the twenty-first chapter of John (1-14) is much more interesting. This fragment, which is inserted as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, is by another hand, and in fact upsets the plan of the book which clearly ends with verses 30 and 31 of chapter xx. It is a secondary and tendencious addition, clumsy and inconsistent, and probably intended to make the Gospel acceptable to the churches which adhered to the Synoptic pattern." Charles Guignebert, Jesus, P. 504.

"The author of the Fourth Gospel, as it is also called, expands the story after the death of Jesus. He, too, relates stories about the risen Jesus appearing to his followers in Jerusalem. Later, a second author, or an editor, added other appearance stories located in Galilee as an appendix in John 21." Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus, P. 122.

"The concluding lines [of chapter 20] (30-31), concerning the object of the book, come from the writer whom we may call the first editor of the Gospel [of John]. They give no sign that he wished to be regarded as an apostolic person. Moreover he bids farewell to his readers with the unmistakable air of having finished his work and completed the mystic instruction of the Christian. After this the chapter that follows is clearly marked as an accretion, of which the effect is to derange the primitive economy of the whole book." Alfred Loisy, The Origins of the New Testament, P. 235.

"A saying in the synoptics...promises that 'some standing here' will still be alive when the Son of Man comes. In the appendix to the Gospel of John (ch. 21), however, Jesus is depicted as discussing an anonymous disciple, called 'the disciple whom Jesus loved', with Peter." E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, P. 179.

See also the works of Howard Clark Kee, Bruce Metzger, R. M. Grant, Rudolf Bultmann, John Domninic Crossan, Burton Mack, et al.

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 19, 2001).]

Rodahi, I appreciate all the quotes and I recognize plenty of the names as reputable scholars. Somehow I've missed this little tidbit up till now. I'll have to do a little more research on it. Obviously though chapter 21 dates way back due to the early witness of p66. Thanks for the info.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 19, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Rodahi, I appreciate all the quotes and I recognize plenty of the names as reputable scholars. Somehow I've missed this little tidbit up till now. I'll have to do a little more research on it. Obviously though chapter 21 dates way back due to the early witness of p66. Thanks for the info.

Ish

As you well know, research takes up valuable time in our lives, but I find the time spent enjoyable.

With respect to P66, Aland's The Text of the New Testament dates it to 200 CE and that is the majority opinion. (Philip Comfort wishes to date it earlier, but he seems to wish to date all extant NT MSS earlier than just about everybody else.)

If we compromise between Aland's and Comfort's dating, we arrive at 175 CE. That means about one hundred and fifty years separate the time of Jesus and the earliest extant MS of the narrative attributed to John. (I am discounting P52 and P90 since they are tiny fragments and do not prove anything other than the existence of "John" in the early-middle part of the second century.) That is a great deal of time for the varied sects of Jesus followers to compile/edit/rewrite/alter/correct the earliest available written sources/autographs.

rodahi

Bede: 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.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Most scholars have arrived at the conclusion that a disciple of Jesus did not write the narrative "John" BECAUSE of the available EVIDENCE and for no other reason. There is NO "double standard."

Bede: Consider Ron's arguments:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There is no evidence to suggest that John could speak Greek. (As a native of Galilee, he more than likely spoke Aramaic.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is firstly an argument from silence and secondly, for the reasons given by Tercel, utterly irrelevent.

1. It is not an argument at all. It is a statement of FACT.
2. It is extremely relevant. If John of Zebedee (JOZ from here on) did not speak Greek as his native language, there is good reason to think he did not write the narrative. The writer writes as a native speaker, not as one who learned the language later in life.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bede: What makes a common fisherman stupid?

Is this a trick question? I have no idea how stupid JOZ was, nor do you.

Bede: Remember, that is what we a discussing here, not literacy. Learning a new language, especially ancient Greek, is what many adults do today.

The issue is, Did JOZ write the narrative attributed to a person named JOHN? There are good reasons for thinking he did not.

If you have evidence demonstrating that JOZ learned Greek at any time in his life, present it.

Bede: Either Ron is claiming that he thinks John was too stupid to do this or he's again making irrelvant points.

This is a logical fallacy. I don't have to think JOZ was stupid to think he did not write the narrative. Further, it is relevant to the question of who wrote "John."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bede: Not confirmed, but stated.

If the writer of Acts is reliable, then JOZ could not read or write.

Bede: 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.

Again, I don't have to think JOZ was stupid to think he did not write the narrative. He may very well have been stupid. No one knows. You bear the burden of proving he was capable of learning Greek and writing the narrative. So far, you have presented no evidence to support your belief.

Bede: John became a leader of the church (from Paul so definitely a historical fact) and so we hope must have had a bit upstairs.

JOZ may have been an active and zealous follower of Jesus. That does not necessarily mean he was intelligent or that he ever learned Greek or that he wrote anything.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bede: So a man who has a temper in his teens must be a psycho when he reaches eighty.

First of all, whoever said that JOZ was in his teens when he became a follower of Jesus? Second, where is your evidence that he lived beyond his thirties or forties? Third, I never said he was a "psycho."

Bedfe: Be serious.

I am being serious.

Bede: 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.

The fact that JOZ was known as one of the "sons of thunder" tells me that he could be easily roused to anger and violent. BTW, we are discussing JOZ, not Cardinal Hume.

Bede: Moving on from irrelevancies

Everything up to this point has been relevant. Your statement adds nothing to your argument.

Bede: let's look at the real evidence.

We have been looking at a "real" lack of evidence on your part.

Bede: 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).

There is evidence that several writers contributed to the narrative over the years.

Bede: - The Gospel claims to be an eye witness at the crucifixion;

Not so. A writer claims that someone was an eyewitness. "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe." (Jn. 19:35) This could very well be Christian propaganda. Why would anyone ever say, "his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe," except to attempt to convince someone to believe? Obviously, some early followers did not believe this account of the crucifixion; hence, the propaganda.

Bede: - The appendix is an early identifier of the author;

At no point in the narrative is the author's name given. If you have positive identification, prove me wrong and present it.

Bede: - The early church Fathers are unanimous that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle.

Present evidence to back up your claim. Why not quote Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, or Barnabas? These are early Christian commentators.
The fact is, Irenaeus, writing ca 180, is the first so called church Father to suggest that a person named John wrote the narrative, and he may have been somewhat confused about the authorship.

Bede: 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.

On the contrary, this is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Person A says that person B says such-and-such. For good reason, most scholars give no credence to Irenaeus' statement.

Furthermore, there is evidence that JOZ was martyred along with his brother James. According to Aphrahat, a Christian commentator of the early fourth century, "Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus. He surpassed in affliction and in confession all who were before or after. And after him was the faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned. Simon (Peter) also and Paul were perfect martyrs. And James and John walked in the footsteps of their master Christ." Demonstrations, 21.23.

This echos Acts 12:1-2: "About that time Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword." It should be noted that after this incident JOZ is never again mentioned in Acts.

According to Howard Clark Kee, "[T]here is some evidence in the New Testament that the disciple John was martyred at the same time as his brother James--i.e., A.D. 44. If this evidence is valid, then none of the books bearing the name of John could have been written by John, the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus. It would have been a simple matter for the early traditions of the Church to confuse a notable leader named John from the church in Ephesus, or from some other city of Asia Minor, with the disciple of the same name." Understanding the New Testament, P. 443.

Bede: - 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.

It could still be symbolic, but so what if it isn't? Knowledge of a pre-War landmark in Jerusalem hardly confirms the identity of the writer.

Bede: - Unlike the synoptics, John knows there were no pharisees in Galilee in Jesus's time and is careful never to place them there.

Isn't this an argument from silence?

Bede: - 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.

No. The writer's date of the crucifixion conforms to an ancient calendar. How does this prove the writer was a witness or a disciple?

Bede: - GJohn has a small vocabulary and is written in simple Greek as befits someone writing in a second language.

Not so. The writer appears to have been a native speaker of Greek. According to Kee, "The skill of the apologetic that the Gospel of John contains suggests that it was written by a man who had had protracted contact with and intimate knowledge of the Greek world." Ibid.

Bede: - Once thought to be Greek, the DSS have placed the theology of John firmly into a Jewish context.

Okay. The writer's theology can be placed "firmly into a Jewish context." Now what?

Bede: This much evidence for the authorship of a secular source would convince anyone but the standards are higher for the NT.

As we can plainly see, there is no "evidence" here. Much of your commentary is un-evidenced assertion and opinion. It is this fact that you ignore. Further, it is for the reasons I presented that most scholars DO NOT think the narrative was written by a disciple of Jesus.

Bede: However, it is good to see that atheist classicist Robin Lane Fox is objective enough to relaise that GJohn is by the apostle.

Robin Lane Fox is objective enough to offer his opinion. Please point out where in The Unauthorized Version, Fox deals with reasons why most scholars do not think JOZ wrote the narrative.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 19, 2001).]

For some reason, Bede started this thread and then, inexplicably, disappeared. Am I to presume he has conceded that my points are valid?

rodahi

Bede

Ron,

Sorry, I didn't notice so thanks for promoting the thread again and for replying. You seem to think you've refuted everything but I'm lost as to how you can claim this. You said JOZ could not have written the Gospel because he was an illerate Jew with a foul temper. I said he could have mellowed and learnt to write.

My evidence was a series of circumstantial points all of which I think are valid but none of which are conclusive on their own. Your argument from the silence of ancient authorities is unacceptable when the vast amount of their works are lost.

Whether or not it was JOZ the important question was the eyewitness nature of the account. You can dismiss anything you like as Christian propaganda but you have no evidence for this. You still haven't given any convincing reason why the Gospel should not be by whom Iraeneus says it is. You can dismiss this as propaganda too but you need a reason to do so which as yet I haven't seen.

You best point is the quality of the Greek. The Gospel is skillfully put together and a fine apologetic, granted. But the language itself is direct and simple. Even I can read it while I faint at the sight of Thucydides... Besides, what was Joseph Conrad's first language? And what did he write his great novels in?

Fox's discussion is in the Unauthorised Version.

Good evidence against JOZ (I like this acronym) would be showing he got details wrong that archaeology has discovered. Trouble is archeaology keeps proving him right. Most arguments I see against John set him against the synoptics which is silly as the synoptics aren't eye witnesses either. To your credit you have not done this but it has left you with an empty quiver.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - reasonable apologetics