rodahi;
How could an illiterate Galilean fisherman write a narrative
(in good Greek) containing a highly-developed theology? Those
who think JOZ did write the narrative known as "John" must
prove that JOZ learned to read and write good Greek, Greek so
good that it appears to have been written by a native speaker
who lived outside Galilee.

offa; I found this in "Recognitions of Clement, Book I,
chap. LXII"; (The location is Caesarea, Clement was previously
in Jericho and this Jericho is evidently very close to Qumran.)

Then, moreover, he charged me with presumption, for though I
was unlearned, a fisherman, and a rustic, I dared to assume
the office of a teacher.

offa;
The speaker is the Roman, Clement, who is the author of the
Clementine Books so it is surprising for him to say
that he is an illiterate and a fisherman. Obviously
he is neither and thus this illiterate fisherman stuff is
figurative speaking. The Encyclopedia Britannica (Catholic rag)
mentions this Clement as the 3rd Pope (Peter 1st). The
encyclopedia cites b. Rome?. BTW, the person who supposedly
challenged Clement with presumption was Caiaphas.

Book II begins with "13 of us in all" rising at the
first cockcrowing.

I am always wary when I see the word "ALL" being used in such
a useless fashion, kind of like "All men are created equal".
"ALL" seems to be excluding everybody else. And, how about
"cockcrowing"? The fundies still think there was a chicken
in the barnyard during the crucifixion when the "cock" was
a timekeeper and
cockcrowing is a specific hour. During the crucifixion there
was extra darkness because of an intercalation and not because
of an eclipse during a full moon!

This first paragraph in book two mentions Niceta and Aquila and
cites them as former disciples of Simon.

My claim is that these men are known as
the sons of Zebedee and Simon is Simon Magus a.k.a. Zebedee.

thanks, offa

First of all, I would like to state that what James has said here is not quite correct. In the thread "Kooks and Quacks of the Sec Web" James had said that he believed that “The Life of Apollonius of Tyana” by Philostratus was written using a primary source written by an eyewitness disciple of Apollonius. The only evidence that such was the case was that Philostratus tells us that he used such a source. My question then became one of consistency on James’ part, since he rejected the idea that Luke or John used eyewitness sources in their stories of Jesus life. I was especially perplexed by his rejection of John being written by an eyewitness, since like Philostratus, the document tells us that the stories do, in fact, come from such a witness, the “beloved disciple.”

Now, do I believe that John, son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel? Yes I do. Did I argue that in the thread however? No. I argued ONLY that the Gospel was written by an eyewitness, and thus my questions focus exclusively on why James rejects this idea. I find the reasons to believe that this individual was John to be quite good, but am perfectly willing to accept that the person who wrote the Gospel of John was another, but still an eyewitness to many of the events he describes. It is from this point of view that I will address the remainder of James’ post.

Metacrock has already addressed this point in tremendous detail, and as I have not seen anyone (including James) challenge him on his points, then I will assume that the arguments presented by James have been sufficiently refuted.

So far so good.

The fact that there was a final redactor to the Gospel hardly invalidates that the bulk of the story itself was not authored by the eye witness himself. Such an argument could just as easily be used to say that because Philostratus is the final redactor in the story about Apollonius, that there was no eye witness account behind his story either. This would be nonsensical. As an aside, since the “beloved disciple” is not identified by name anywhere in the Gospel of John, we cannot assume that this beloved disciple was, in fact, John. The evidence for that argument must come elsewhere (as must ANY argument as to the identity of the beloved disciple).

Once again I would like to state that the argument I made was that John was written by an eye witness, not that this witness had to be John, son of Zebedee.

Agreed, but not relevant. See above.

As with other arguments, Metacrock has addressed these points in sufficient detail in my view. What I will add is that the evidence that the Gospel of John was written after 85AD is very weak. The expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues, for example, was a practice in many localities even before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD (see Paul’s references to his treatment in some cities). Further, assuming that John was martyred prior to that destruction (especially based on Mark 10) is highly speculative. The martyrdom of his brother James is described in Acts, but no where in the Bible do we see John, son of Zebedee killed.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that John’s Gospel fits in very nicely with Jewish thought pre-70AD. And as for the theories about gnostic beliefs being contained within the Gospel of John, that is a separate argument, and has no bearing on whether or not the author was, himself an eyewitness.

The problem I have with the entire argument presented by James is that it misses my original point completely. In order to argue that the Gospel of John was not written by an eye witness, one must show not that it was redacted (obviously it was), but that none of the stories could have been produced by someone that was there. The evidence that the author WAS there is simply overwhelming, and to be sceptical on this matter requires a serious effort to show how the inconsistencies and errors found within the Gospel make eye witness authorship extremely unlikely.

If James or anyone else wishes to make such an argument, then I would be more than happy to consider it. As it stands right now, the case that John was written by an eye witness can and should be taken as our working assumption, and the evidence that it is not the product of such a witness must be made.

Nomad

I really wonder about this statement.

How much of it would have had to be written by an eyewitness to make this claim? 90%? 75%? 50%? 10%?

What if 75% were written by an eyewitness but that same 75% were redacted? Should we then consider that 75% that had been redacted to be eyewitness testimony? And isn't the extent of the redaction at issue also? Adding a kai here and there is certainly redacting but not anywhere near the scale as adding that Jesus is the amnos tou theou. What I'm getting at is whether and at what level redaction changes the very nature of a work.

Would the stories have to be in their original forum? If not, how close? Hypothetically, what if the eyewitness wrote that Jesus called John 'the Lamb of God' but the redactor reversed it. Would that still be eyewitness testimony? (I'm not saying that happened, I'm just asking.) We obviously don't want to say that every word has to be identical to the original testimony to call it eyewitness but we don't want to be too lenient in our criteria either, so where do we draw the line and how do we quantify it?

Also, what if the person who wrote it were actually there but deliberately lied most of the time (again, just a hypothetical-I'm trying to understand the criteria for the term 'eyewitness testimony')? Is it eyewitness testimony in that case just because of the presence of the witness?



[This message has been edited by not a theist (edited June 22, 2001).]

Hi nat

Your question is a good one, but misses the larger issue I was taking specifically with James' criterion for accepting that Philostratus was using an eye witness account in his composition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana even as he rejected that the Gospels of John and Luke did not do this. I found his choice of beliefs to be highly selective and inconsistent. For example, no one is arguing that Philostratus very probably redacted his sources on Apollonius. That did not detract from the belief that he did have eye witness accounts. Yet, when it comes to the equally probably truth that the Gospel of John was redacted, James saw fit to use this as a reason to reject that John was written by an eye witness at all!

Quite frankly, I did not understand the point of his argument here, especially in light of the fact that we have four separate accounts of the life of Jesus, but only one of Apollonius. On this basis, at least, we have a means to compare the possible veracity of the claims made by the author of John. We have no such tools when it comes to the work of Philostratus.

While this is an interesting question, and one well worth pursuing, it is still beside the point on this particular thread. The only real question here is whether or not eye witness testimony stands behind the Gospel of John (and parenthetically behind that of Luke and the other Gospels as well). I believe that eye witnesses do account for many of the stories in the Canonical Gospels. In John, the specific claim is made that such is the case. As to how much those stories were embellished, distorted, or even fabricated, I would prefer to treat that issue seperately, as it detracts from the real issue of authorship.

Here we are talking more about the historicity of the stories, and again, I think this question is important, but not in this particular discussion. Right now I am principly interested in uncovering why James (and others) reject the idea that John was written by an eye witness, especially if these others wish to claim that the source(s) for The Life of Apollonius did come from eye witness accounts.

A discussion for how to uncover possible redactions is always possible nat. I hope that you understand my request that it be kept seperate from this one however. After all, we can speculate all day on such matters, but none of that will bring us closer to the question of who authored the original text.

This is an interesting question. I will defer to James in his answer before giving my own. After all, his level of confidence that Philostratus used eye witness accounts, and did so reliably, is clearly quite high. I would not mind seeing the criterion by which he made such a judgement.

Good point, and obviously the answer here is no, we must no believe testimony just because it comes from someone who was there. No evidence should be so privaleged, nor, by the same token, should it be discounted solely on the basis that the account is incredible.

Thank you for your thoughts nat. Out of curiosity, did you follow the conversation between James and I on the other thread? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that exchange as well.

Peace,

Nomad

Baloney.

This argument simply begs the question. You're just assuming a priori the truth of the claim that everyone has been debating. That's not the way it works. If you want to claim that the GOJ was written by an eyewitness, you're going to have to prove it without resorting to a priori assumptions.

The gospel's claim of eyewitness authorship is one fact in your favor. If that's the only arrow in your quiver, however, you might as well give up now.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The evidence that the author WAS there is simply overwhelming, and to be sceptical on this matter requires a serious effort to show how the inconsistencies and errors found within the Gospel make eye witness authorship extremely unlikely. </font>

Now you're a priori assuming 1) that there was even a "there" for the author to be at (IOW that the events in the GOJ are not fictional), and 2) that the author's claim of being an eyewitness is true. That makes TWO questions begged in ONE sentence!

And then we're supposed to listen to you lecture us about what it takes to "be sceptical"? Ha!

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If James or anyone else wishes to make such an argument, then I would be more than happy to consider it. </font>

No skeptic would make this argument because there simply is no need to do so. Please don't hold your breath waiting.


Good day.

Hello CheeseHead

I am assuming that you never read the original thread in which James told us that he believes that Philostratus used an eyewitness account largely because Philostratus says that he used such a document, and that this is plausible.

On that basis I have been trying to understand why he rejects similar claims for the Gospel of John and of Luke. If you reject the claims of Luke and John, I would see rejection of Philostratus as being consistent. Would you agree?

It's not, but that is not really the point here. I just want to know why James accepts one claim (Philostratus), but not the others (Luke and John).

I am not assuming that they are true, but the details are such that the claim that they come from an eye witness cannot be ruled out automatically. If we are to reject authorship by an eye witness, the evidence must be inconsistent with such a claim. I do not see such evidence with John. Do you?

Yes, I am accustomed to sceptics not supporting their assertions and beliefs, but I remain hopeful.

Thank you for your post CheeseHead.

Be well,

Nomad

You originally wrote this:

"In order to argue that the Gospel of John was not written by an eye witness, one must show not that it was redacted (obviously it was), but that none of the stories could have been produced by someone that was there."

Now if you can't support this statement, just retract it. Don't change the subject.

You prattle on and on about all this evidence but never produce any. What's the title of this thread again?

One thing I agree with.

Not true. The evidence FOR one claim need only be sufficiently more convincing than the evidence FOR all alternative claims. I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of the anonymous authorship of the GOJ much more than I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of eyewitness authorship.

I take issue with your statement because, given two opposing claims, some individual tidbits of evidence may in fact be consistent with both. That's especially true here. One side claims the GOJ is a REAL eyewitness testimony. The other claims it's a FORGED eyewitness testimony. It's quite obvious that much/most/all evidence supporting the REAL eyewitness claim will also support the FORGED eyewitness claim.

Did you forget to put a little smiley here? You didn't really mean to come across that way did you?

TTFN

If the original posters will welcome more commentary on this....the following was posted to XTalk:

_____________________

Dear Listers,
If I may enter the John as B.D. debating fray with a swag of
critical observations and questions:

Imagine the scene at the Last Supper with John the Apostle
reclining on Jesus' right. Now consult John 18:28 with its
chronology of a Passover meal in prospect not as passed. I do not
think I am overstressing the point that if John the Apostle is the
B.D. and reporter of that verse (and indeed the Gospel per se),
dire consequences follow with (1) either his Gospel needing to be
re-named with him no longer a candidate for B.D. nor to be regarded
as the original evangelist and (2) the understanding of Jesus
himself as expressed in Luke 22:8 and Luke 22:15 on the preparation
of and the actual occasion of the Last Supper.

If John the Apostle was the B.D. and Evangelist, singly and/or
collectively, at the Last Supper this John would be utterly
perplexed at seeing not the fare of an ordinary meal on the table
as he would have expected but instead the very different Paschal
meal fare, including a Paschal lamb ready for consumption by the
others present! He would certainly ask: "Who prepared this lamb"?
From the evidence afforded by his Passion narrative as given in
John 18.28, he would know that something was very wrong for the
Paschal lamb was due on the table the following night of Friday,
not that Thursday night!! He could not therefore with Peter have
prepared the Passover lamb that Thursday! He would be at a complete
loss at the Last Supper at hearing Jesus say the words as reported
in Luke 22.15: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer"!! Jesus himself would have to disown John
as his B.D., granting that Jesus himself actually said the words
reported in Luke 22.15 in the belief that a Pasch
Moreover, the Apostle John cannot in any way especially as the B.D.
be connected with the compilation of the Fourth Gospel if he
himself (John) helped prepare a Passover lamb wherever that
Thursday afternoon (see Luke 22:8)! If Jesus in Luke 22:15 forbids
John the distinction of being the B.D., it ill becomes any NT
historian, expositor, commentator, churchman, exegete or prelate of
any denomination, academic, critic or expert of any kind engaged
seriously in the discipline of NT exegesis to hold and promote the
opposite!!

If Luke 22:8 was historically uttered by Jesus, then John the
Apostle cannot be the B.D. and/or the evangelist because John 18:28
contradicts it! If John the Apostle wrote or reported John 18:28,
then Jesus could not have uttered Luke 22:8. This brings in its
turn the questions of Inerrancy and Inspiration. I opt definitely
for John 18:28 as historical and Luke 22:15 as basically
liturgical.

The present debate on John the Apostle is therefore completely
misplaced and leads nowhere. He is not and cannot possibly be the
B.D. With all rightful respects to his sanctity as one of the
saints in Heaven, he should be eliminated from all further debate
on the question.

Metacrock, I would like to see the citation showing that the Epistle of the Apostles quoted from the fourth gospel. I don't necessarily dispute this, but it would be useful for me to have in my records. Thank you.