Does this mean you have no evidence to back up your claims/opinions?

rodahi

Bede

My post above sets out some of the evidence. Perhaps you'd like to respond to it.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Huh? Right...

Anyway, responding to the only thing that you actually seem prepared to discuss sensiblely:
This is pretty vague. What would you expect to see in the writing of a person with John's supposed temperment? Is John's righteous anger the sort of trait which is likely to be reflected in writing by him? What specific verses would you expect to be different than they currently are if a person of John's supposed personality had written them?

I hope to respond to your points in a few days, or sooner.

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] Tercel: Huh? Right...

Perhaps you didn't read my question. I will ask it again: Does this mean you have no evidence to back up your claims/opinions? If you don't present any evidence, I will presume you have none.

rodahi

I did read your suggestion. I just didn't take it seriously.
I'm quite happy to back up any claims you wish. I don't really remember making any claims that needed backing up though: I claimed that the writings of the early Church fathers attributed the GoJ to John the Apostle. I really don't think that this needs backing up.
You are the one making the claim that there are "good reasons" why John couldn't have written the GoJ. I suggested several reasons why your "good reasons" might not have been good at all. The burden of proof is not on me to prove any or all of my suggestions, but rather on you to disprove them: You are the one trying to prove the John didn't write the GoJ. You are making the claim not me: You prove it! I'm not making any claims: I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, that may not be completely true--the part about not knowing Greek. See, John son of Zebedee was a fisherman by trade. In Galilee, that was the main business. Being a man of trade, John (as well as the other fishermen) probably had to have SOME multilingual abilities--particularly Greek, since that's a language probably spoken by those they would be trading and doing business with. I know you will more than likely ask in reply, "Where is your evidence?" In response, I can for now say that this is a reasonable deduction from studying secular Greco-Roman trading process. Very soon, I'm going to begin reading James Jeffers' "Greco-Roman World of the NT Era." At that time, I hope to be able to give a more complete answer.

Note how this passage from Mark says nothing about John's writing ability. But in reply, might I put this back on you and ask how we know ancient fishermen were unable to write? Also, none of the NT writers presume (or even claim to be) "professional" writers. 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.

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. 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. Peter and John had simply never been trained as rabbis. 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! This verse might actually SUPPORT the authenticity of Johannine authorship! 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. 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? I'm afraid too much is being read into the text in this objection.

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

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.

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.")

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.

All for now. Feedback is welcome.

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited May 18, 2001).]

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"?

Much appreciated,
Ish

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] Terce: I did read your suggestion. I just didn't take it seriously.

When you begin to take this discussion seriously, maybe we can get somewhere with it.


Tercel: I'm quite happy to back up any claims you wish. I don't really remember making any claims that needed backing up though: I claimed that the writings of the early Church fathers attributed the GoJ to John the Apostle. I really don't think that this needs backing up.

So far, you have made un-evidenced statements. Why not quote ALL the "early Church fathers?" Here is a suggestion: Quote all the Church fathers who preceded Irenaeus, i.e., all the early fathers who wrote before 150-175 CE.

Tercel: You are the one making the claim that there are "good reasons" why John couldn't have written the GoJ. I suggested several reasons why your "good reasons" might not have been good at all. The burden of proof is not on me to prove any or all of my suggestions, but rather on you to disprove them: You are the one trying to prove the John didn't write the GoJ. You are making the claim not me: You prove it! I'm not making any claims: I don't have to prove anything.

No, Tercel, I have not said "John didn't write the GoJ." I have said there are good reasons for thinking he did not, and I presented my reasons.

You have said that John of Zebedee wrote the narrative. It is you who bears the burden of proof.

Now, Tercel, Do you have any evidence to back up your claims/opinions?

rodahi

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.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anderson: Actually, that may not be completely true--the part about not knowing Greek. See, John son of Zebedee was a fisherman by trade. In Galilee, that was the main business. Being a man of trade, John (as well as the other fishermen) probably had to have SOME multilingual abilities--particularly Greek, since that's a language probably spoken by those they would be trading and doing business with. I know you will more than likely ask in reply, "Where is your evidence?" In response, I can for now say that this is a reasonable deduction from studying secular Greco-Roman trading process. Very soon, I'm going to begin reading James Jeffers' "Greco-Roman World of the NT Era." At that time, I hope to be able to give a more complete answer.

With all due respect, you have presented no evidence here. I think it is reasonable to suppose that Galilean fisherman, especially those who could not read or write, spoke Aramaic. Perhaps we will never know for sure.

rodahi