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.

I presented evidence supporting my claim that JOZ was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who could be, on occasion, an angry, violent person. You have presented no evidence that he “mellowed” or “learnt to write.” You have merely asserted this.

Bede: My evidence was a series of circumstantial points all of which I think are valid but none of which are conclusive on their own.

You know as well as I do that “a series of circumstantial points” is not evidence.

Bede: Your argument from the silence of ancient authorities is unacceptable when the vast amount of their works are lost.

My arguments stem from the available evidence, not from what I think the evidence might have been or should be. Also, you stated, “The early church Fathers are unanimous that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle [JOZ].” This is just plain wrong. The earliest Christian apologists--Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Barnabas-- make no such claim. As a matter of fact, with respect to Papias, George Hamartolos, [ninth century] in his Chronicle, as it appears in the codex Coislinianus, states, “[John] was worthy of martyrdom.” He goes on to quote Papias’ comment that “he [John] was killed by the Jews.” In another MS, “the so-called de Boor fragment of an epitome (600-800 A.D.) of the Chronicle of the fifth century writer, Philip of Side,” Papias is quoted: “Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews.” See Morton Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370. According to Enslin: “That Papias’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had ‘drunk the cup’ that Jesus had drunk and had been ‘baptized with the baptism’ with which he had been baptized.” Ibid.

According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 4.9), Heracleon mentions several apostles who did not suffer martyrdom: Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi. John and James are not mentioned. According to Enslin, “It may be also remarked that in the fifth century Syriac martyrology the joint martyrdom of James and John was celebrated on December 27.” Ibid.

Christian apologist Aphrahat said, “Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus...And James and John walked in the footsteps of their master Christ.” Demonstrations 21.23


Bede: Whether or not it was JOZ the important question was the eyewitness nature of the account.

Are you admitting that JOZ may not have been the writer of “John?” Are we finally agreeing on something here?


Bede: You can dismiss anything you like as Christian propaganda but you have no evidence for this.

Is there evidence that the Christians wrote propaganda? According to Howard Clark Kee, “[the gospels] were produced by the second generation of Christians...they cannot be used as they stand for direct, first-hand reports of events they describe...They are in the truest sense of the term propaganda literature. If one had to provide a single statement of purpose that would suit all four of the gospels he could probably not find a better one than the explanation given by the author of the Gospel of John: These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. -John 20:23. Both the claim that is made in behalf of Jesus as the Christ and the appeal to respond in faith to that claim are present in the intention of the Gospel writers. The gospels are, above all, documents for the propagation of the faith.” Understanding the New Testament, P. 55.

Propaganda is not always honest and truthful and should be read with caution.

Bede: 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.

And you have yet to produce the tiniest shred of evidence that Irenaeus said JOZ wrote the narrative. Quote Irenaeus where he definitively states that John of Zebedee wrote anything at all.

Bede: 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?

This is an example of a false analogy. Jozef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski (Joseph Conrad) states in his autobiography, A Personal Record, that he was introduced to the English language by his father at the age of eight. See Encyclopaedia Britannica 2001. He learned to read English as a child! Now, where is your evidence that JOZ ever learned to read and write? Where is your evidence that he learned Greek? (The NT evidences that JOZ was an illiterate, and sometimes violent, Galilean fisherman.)

Bede: Fox's discussion is in the Unauthorised Version.

Yes, it is, and Robin Lane Fox gives good reason for thinking that JOZ DID NOT write the narrative. He states, “John, son of Zebedee, was a Galilean fisherman; Mark 10:39 appears to hint already at this John’s martyrdom, and unless its words are truly prophetic, we face the problem that the author of the fourth Gospel does seem to have lived on to take account of Mark’s text (among several hints, John 6:25-59 on the Bread of Heaven perhaps corrects and amplifies Mark 8:14ff.” P. 208. This contradicts a statement you made in a previous post: “However, it is good to see that atheist classicist Robin Lane Fox is objective enough to relaise (sic) that GJohn is by the apostle.”

Bede: 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.

An early source for the narrative (as opposed to the discourse) portion of “John” does not prove that JOZ was the writer. Any person who knew of the Jesus tradition and lived during the time before the Roman siege of Jerusalem could have been a source. Since JOZ was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who was most likely martyred early on, it is highly improbable that he wrote anything at all.

Bede: 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.

On the contrary, Bede, I have many sharp (as in valid) points in my “quiver.”

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 27, 2001).]

Bede

This is getting good and as I've been careless there will be red meat for the anti-Christians too.

I don't need to present evidence for something that is plainly possible. All I need do is show how your objection does not prevent JOZ's authorship.

We'll have to disagree as in my experiance this is all we have sometimes. I'll call my points circumstantial evidence though, just to be clear what I mean.

Well they might but it hasn't survived...

...as for John's martyrdom or not the case is open. Mark is the strongest evidence by miles with Papias a distant second. Perhaps the answer is to adopt JAT Robinson's position of an early GJohn. As you say, Fox thinks that while JOZ is up in the air (careless me), GJohn is an eyewitness account. This is the important point and I'd happily drop JOZ if you'd concede this was a good possibility.

My position is that GJohn is probably an eyewitness account and the eye witness is most likely JOZ. The later point is far less important.

Disbelieving everything is dead easy. As the Jesus Myth argument has shown, its deciding what to believe that is hard.

"Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - Irenaeus, AH III(1)

But it does kill of the daftly late dates for GJohn that used to be all the rage. I'll drop the JOZ point but only to concentrate fully on the eyewitness question.

And I cannot tell you how happy I am to finally see them.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reaon

This is getting good and as I've been careless there will be red meat for the anti-Christians too.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presented evidence supporting my claim that JOZ was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who could be, on occasion, an angry, violent person. You have presented no evidence that he “mellowed” or “learnt to write.” You have merely asserted this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't need to present evidence for something that is plainly possible. All I need do is show how your objection does not prevent JOZ's authorship.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know as well as I do that “a series of circumstantial points” is not evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll have to disagree as in my experiance this is all we have sometimes. I'll call my points circumstantial evidence though, just to be clear what I mean.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, you stated, “The early church Fathers are unanimous that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle [JOZ].” This is just plain wrong. The earliest Christian apologists--Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Barnabas-- make no such claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well they might but it hasn't survived...

...as for John's martyrdom or not the case is open. Mark is the strongest evidence by miles with Papias a distant second. Perhaps the answer is to adopt JAT Robinson's position of an early GJohn. As you say, Fox thinks that while JOZ is up in the air (careless me), GJohn is an eyewitness account. This is the important point and I'd happily drop JOZ if you'd concede this was a good possibility.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you admitting that JOZ may not have been the writer of “John?” Are we finally agreeing on something here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My position is that GJohn is probably an eyewitness account and the eye witness is most likely JOZ. The later point is far less important.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda is not always honest and truthful and should be read with caution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disbelieving everything is dead easy. As the Jesus Myth argument has shown, its deciding what to believe that is hard.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Irenaeus where he definitively states that John of Zebedee wrote anything at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - Irenaeus, AH III(1)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early source for the narrative (as opposed to the discourse) portion of “John” does not prove that JOZ was the writer. Any person who knew of the Jesus tradition and lived during the time before the Roman siege of Jerusalem could have been a source. Since JOZ was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who was most likely martyred early on, it is highly improbable that he wrote anything at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does kill of the daftly late dates for GJohn that used to be all the rage. I'll drop the JOZ point but only to concentrate fully on the eyewitness question.

I believe every reader can plainly see that you have done nothing more than repeat your opinions. With the exception of Irenaeus' sentence (He does not mentioni JOZ), you have presented nothing. This is very disappointing, Bede.

rodahi

since it claims in johns gospel that it was him that wrote it in ch 21 v20 and 24 . and also is evident that john was an ignorant fisherman lets look at some more historical claims.
john was the youngest disiple of the 12 and was probably still a teen when he met jesus , it`s at this stage of his life he leaves being a fisherman and follows jesus , probably youger than 20 ( I myself couldn`t spell or read even after 10 yrs of school until i left school and learned to read myself so i could complete my apprentiship , so it`s not imposible , i`m now 34 and well learned.)next point is that john lived longer than all the other disiples that new jesus and in his old age was imprisoned on an island in patmos just of greece, exiled there by nero(roman emporer)at the time. In patmos john is suposed to of writen many things to the greek church at the turn of the 1st century. this encludes the book of revelations writen to the greek church , writen so it was camaflaged , so only christians could understand it because of great christian persicution by emporer nero at the time , thats why the gospel of john was writen so diffrent to other gospels as revelations is also.another point is, john being very old and even slitly out of touch with worldly thinking at the time ,that these writings are the most briliante books in the bible to those that understand them and john is probably the most acurate writings concerning what jesus did and who he is . there are many writings atributed to john but few are writen by him , you can tell his style of preaching and faith and vocabliary and from much study from someone like me that was iliterate at 16 and now well learned in history and the origins of religions and cultures , i believe that the gospel of john is the best sores of the truth in jesus.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truthseekar:
since it claims in johns gospel that it was him that wrote it in ch 21 v20 and 24.

As a matter of fact, the writer never claims to be John of Zebedee.

truth: and also is evident that john was an ignorant fisherman lets look at some more historical claims.

This is correct.

truth: john was the youngest disiple of the 12

This is not correct. Please point out where in the narrative it says JOZ was the "youngest disciple."

truth: and was probably still a teen when he met jesus , it`s at this stage of his life he leaves being a fisherman and follows jesus

No one knows how old JOZ was when he became a follower of Jesus. He could very well have been 25 or older for all we know.

truth: probably youger than 20 ( I myself couldn`t spell or read even after 10 yrs of school until i left school and learned to read myself so i could complete my apprentiship , so it`s not imposible , i`m now 34 and well learned.)

There is no evidence that JOZ learned to read and write or that he ever learned the Greek language. What you have done is irrelvant.


truth: next point is that john lived longer than all the other disiples that new jesus and in his old age was imprisoned on an island in patmos just of greece, exiled there by nero(roman emporer)at the time.

There is evidence that JOZ was martyred with James while both were young. Read my previous commentary on this. Also, present evidence that indicates JOZ travelled outside of Palestine.

truth: In patmos john is suposed to of writen many things to the greek church at the turn of the 1st century. this encludes the book of revelations writen to the greek church , writen so it was camaflaged , so only christians could understand it because of great christian persicution by emporer nero at the time , thats why the gospel of john was writen so diffrent to other gospels as revelations is also.

Virtually all critical scholars agree that the anonymous writer of the fourth gospel WAS NOT the writer of Revelation.

truth: another point is, john being very old and even slitly out of touch with worldly thinking at the time ,that these writings are the most briliante books in the bible to those that understand them and john is probably the most acurate writings concerning what jesus did and who he is .

Prove that JOZ lived beyond his early years. Also, prove that he learned to read and write and that he learned Greek.

truth: there are many writings atributed to john but few are writen by him , you can tell his style of preaching and faith and vocabliary and from much study from someone like me that was iliterate at 16 and now well learned in history and the origins of religions and cultures , i believe that the gospel of john is the best sores of the truth in jesus.

You have a right to believe what you wish, but what you believe is not based on historical evidence.

rodahi

rodahi, I didn`t have to look very far. the first place I looked to check my history prity much says what I said. That was the encyclopedia Encarta 2000 , It says: John the Evangelist (?-AD 101), in the New Testament, one of the 12 apostles, son of Zebedee and younger brother of Saint James the Great. He is also known as St. John the Divine. He became a disciple first of John the Baptist and then of Jesus, who made him an apostle and called him and James Boanerges (Greek, "sons of thunder"), for their zeal (see Mark 3:17). John, together with James and Peter, made up the group of disciples who witnessed Jesus' transfiguration and were present during the agony in Gethsemane. Next to Peter, John was the most active of the apostles in organizing the early church in Palestine and, later, throughout Asia Minor.
According to tradition, during a period of persecution of Christians by the Romans, John was banished to Pátmos, where he is believed to have written the Apocalypse, or Book of Revelation. Later he is believed to have gone to Ephesus, where the same tradition relates that he wrote three Epistles and the fourth Gospel. He is venerated as the patron saint of Asia Minor. In art he is represented by several emblems, among them an eagle, relating to his position as evangelist, and a kettle, referring to the tradition that he survived an attempted execution by immersion in burning oil. His feast day is December 27.
"John the Evangelist," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999
this isn`t were I got my info originlly but it conferms to me everything that I have been taught.

rodahi: You have a right to believe what you wish, but what you believe is not based on historical evidence.

I no that we are genrally feed crap from birth so if i`m missinformed rodahi , please fill me in on were you get your evidence so i can check out how you have dinied encyclopedic litriture.
It`s seems to me that your historical evidence is the one without foundation or base.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truthseekar:
rodahi, I didn`t have to look very far. the first place I looked to check my history prity much says what I said. That was the encyclopedia Encarta 2000 , It says: John the Evangelist (?-AD 101), in the New Testament, one of the 12 apostles, son of Zebedee and younger brother of Saint James the Great. He is also known as St. John the Divine. He became a disciple first of John the Baptist and then of Jesus, who made him an apostle and called him and James Boanerges (Greek, "sons of thunder"), for their zeal (see Mark 3:17). John, together with James and Peter, made up the group of disciples who witnessed Jesus' transfiguration and were present during the agony in Gethsemane. Next to Peter, John was the most active of the apostles in organizing the early church in Palestine and, later, throughout Asia Minor.
According to tradition, during a period of persecution of Christians by the Romans, John was banished to Pátmos, where he is believed to have written the Apocalypse, or Book of Revelation. Later he is believed to have gone to Ephesus, where the same tradition relates that he wrote three Epistles and the fourth Gospel. He is venerated as the patron saint of Asia Minor. In art he is represented by several emblems, among them an eagle, relating to his position as evangelist, and a kettle, referring to the tradition that he survived an attempted execution by immersion in burning oil. His feast day is December 27.
"John the Evangelist," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999
this isn`t were I got my info originlly but it conferms to me everything that I have been taught.

Did you notice that your source does not mention the facts that I presented earlier in this thread:
According to the NT,
1. John of Zebedee was a Galilean fisherman.
2. JOZ was illiterate.

According to some Christian sources,
JOZ was martyred with his brother James BEFORE the Jewish War.

Also, there is no evidence that JOZ ever learned Greek or learned to read and write. There is no evidence that JOZ ever travelled outside of Palestine.

Please deal with these issues rather than quote an encyclopedia that simply restates orthodox Christian "tradition."

rodahi: You have a right to believe what you wish, but what you believe is not based on historical evidence.

truthseekar: I no that we are genrally feed crap from birth so if i`m missinformed rodahi , please fill me in on were you get your evidence so i can check out how you have dinied encyclopedic litriture.

Begin by reading the NT. Next, read what the so-called Church Fathers actually said. Last, read commentaries by critical scholars who are interested in history, not theology.

truthseekar: It`s seems to me that your historical evidence is the one without foundation or base.

It seems to me that all you are aware of is Christian propaganda and Encarta 2000.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 03, 2001).]

RODAHI :It seems to me that all you are aware of is Christian propaganda and Encarta 2000

It seems to me rodahi that propaganga goes both ways. If theorys are all we all have on history ,so it seems because there is always atleast two sides to a story,and with so much time past , who could really no the truth ,but then that stands for much of history then , ie . alexander the great , julius cesear , nebucadnezzar and of egyption culture and the origons of civilization. all many sided storys , mostly spekulation , many theorys ,few facts ,so all we have is propaganda on all sides ,. people trying to prove there write on grounds of theory and spekulations, so then , most people on this site ( including me to) are full of propaganda. rohid, you speek with much propaganda please use references so I can atleast check out you propiganda.
dictonary meaning for propoganda:A systematic effort to persuade a body of people to support or adopt a particular option,attitude,or course of action.

RODAHI: Did you notice that your source does not mention the facts that I presented earlier in this thread:
According to the NT,
1. John of Zebedee was a Galilean fisherman.
2. JOZ was illiterate

As I said originally . Althou I can`t proove john was the yongest of the twelve, (this is mostly speculation on my part due to him being youger than james ,and other sources that i hav`nt been able to reconfirm yet) the bible states that john and james left there former lifes and followed jesus, as i also said before , once I was interested in learning Ceartin things I learned to read and write very fast.

RODAHI:According to some Christian sources,
JOZ was martyred with his brother James BEFORE the Jewish War.

could you please tell me were you got your info suggesting that john was martyed with james , I`d like to see that.

RODAHI:Also, there is no evidence that JOZ ever learned Greek or learned to read and write. There is no evidence that JOZ ever travelled outside of Palestine.

there is plenty of what you would call propaganda to used as evidence , ie. encarta , is every thing that you don`t believe propaganda rodahi and every thing you believe the truth , I want truth not propaganda so please give some eveidence to your propaganda. You have a right to believe what you wish, but what you believe is not based on historical evidence from what i can tell.

[This message has been edited by truthseekar (edited June 03, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truthseekar:
RODAHI :It seems to me that all you are aware of is Christian propaganda and Encarta 2000

truthseekar: it seems to me rodahi that propaganga gose both ways. if thearys are all we all have on history ,so it seems because there is always atleast two sides to a story,and with so much time past , who could realy no the truth but then that stands for much of history then , ie . alexander the great , julius cesear , nebacudnezer and of egyption culture and the origons of civilization. all many sised story , mostly spekulation , many thearys ,few facts ,so all we have is propaganda on all sides ,. people trying to prove there write on gronds of theory and spekulations, so then , most people on this site ( including me to) are full of propaganda.

Not everyone is interested in spreading propaganda. Some, and I think I fit in this category, just wish to find out what happened in the past. I am not concerned with PROVING something did or did not happen. I am concerned with looking at as much evidence as possible and arriving at sensible conclusions BASED on that evidence.

trughseekar: rohid, you speek with much propaganda please use reffrencace so I can atleast check out you propiganda.

I have presented what historians (both ancient and modern) and NT writers have said.

truthseekar: dictonary meaning for propoganda:a sysematic effort to persuade a body of people to support or adopt a particular option,attitude,or course of action.

Agreed.

rodahi: Did you notice that your source does not mention the facts that I presented earlier in this thread:
According to the NT,
1. John of Zebedee was a Galilean fisherman.
2. JOZ was illiterate

truthseekar: as i said origanaly . althou i can`t proove john was the yongest of the twelve (this is mostly speculation on my part due to him being youger than james

Why do you presume that JOZ was younger than James of Zebedee?

truthseekar: and other sorces that i hav`nt been able to reconferm yet) the bible states that john and james left there former lifes and followed jesus, as i also said before , once I was interested in learning sertin things i learnd to read and write very fast.

It is true that the NT states that John and James left their netmending and joined Jesus as followers.

RODAHI:According to some Christian sources,
JOZ was martyred with his brother James BEFORE the Jewish War.

truthseekar: rodahi could you please tel me were you got your info sugesting that john was martyed with james , I`d like to see that.

Read this entire thread. If you can't find it, I will re-post it.

RODAHI:Also, there is no evidence that JOZ ever learned Greek or learned to read and write. There is no evidence that JOZ ever travelled outside of Palestine.

truthseekar: there is plenty of what you would call propaganda to youse as evidence , ie. encarta , is every thing that you don`t believe propaganda rodahi and every thing you believe the truth , i wan`t truth not propaganda so please give some eveidence to your propaganda ,please.

I have nothing against Encarta 2000. The problem is, it presents only one point of view. There are others. Besides one encyclopedia, What have you read?

rodahi

quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


It was not uncommen for scribes to write for people back then, that is what it seems to suggest happened so maby john didn`t write it with his own hand but it is still his testamony. look at ch 21 v 24 again , It is this disiple who (IS BEARING) wittness ( not did or was)to these things and (HAS RECORDED) them. now either this is christian propaganda or it`s the truth , simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: rodahi
Why do you presume that JOZ was younger than James of Zebedee?
--------------------------------------------

because the bible names james before john I suppose I got that
impression.


quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against Encarta 2000. The problem is, it presents only one point of view. There are others. Besides one encyclopedia, What have you read?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

the only other encyc. i have on hand is the columbia and that says pritty much the same as the encarta with this added;many scholars believe that st. john of ephesus were two diffrent persons and so on (as you have said).


bachquote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
truthseekar: rodahi could you please tel me were you got your info sugesting that john was martyed with james , I`d like to see that.

Read this entire thread. If you can't find it, I will re-post it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


i haven`t found this yet but I do no that when paul and barnabas went to jeruselem to see the apostle`s about the law and curcumsision that james had already been martyred and james the brother of jesus was running things with peter and john , so john was still alive.read gal ch 2 v9.


quote: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.)
2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.
3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.
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


quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 he didn`t need to (if he used a scribe or interpritor.)
2 considering scribes (this becomes iralivant)
3 this also becomes erralivent.
4 or he gave it to them because of there zeal ( i think thay were linked with john the baptised , this could be a result of that zeal.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


sorry rodahi, but unless you have more evidence I think I`ll stay with the way I see it for now until someone comes up with better evidence than these points. also consider the day of pentacost in acts ch 2 when thay spoke in other tounges and prophesyed in many tounges so as to amaze those around , because thay heard the works of god in there own langage from a bunch of gallileans ( just like the prophets of old , ie king saul and elisha.)