Adam

Justifying myself against the aspersion that my opinions on eyewitnesses and apostolic authorship are garbage (thanks to outhouse for giving the opening to defend myself with these posts), I Googled on one of my authors for gJohn, John Mark. This opinion comes up even more frequently than the really strange one that Lazarus was the author--but usually with John Mark as the sole author or at least as author of a unitary gJohn.

The first I clicked on is 73 pages fully available (but not copyable) on the internet just June 12, 2012, and no copyright restrictions for non-commercial use. I recommend particularly page 26 and 73 where it lays out the gist of John Mark as both the Beloved Disciple, the disciple (and a priest) known to the High Priest, and the main author of gJohn. Lots of what's here supports me about who John Mark was. You can find out for yourself, if you like, what does not. A. A. M. van der Hoeven attributes the whole text to John Mark (whereas I give him only the Passion Narrative) along with a co-author that only Roman Catholics (and women) would warm up to. It starts out reading as assertions without scholarly references, but gets to plenty of them later. Then the implications go really beyond the pale, with six NT books attributed to John Mark!

http://www.jesusking.info/John%20Mark.pdf

stephan huller

I think there is something to this but we'll never unravel any of it. Keep working though

Adam

What a surprise! Julius Wellhausen may have been the earliest to propose John Mark as the author of gJohn. According to
H. Hall Harris
The third alternative to the traditional John the son of Zebedee is that

stephan huller

I think the underlying idea would probably be that Mark wrote two gospels - a public and a secret text. Luke was constructed as representing that text 'after Mark' but there must have been a Valentinian tradition which served as the basis for John. This is why John closes the fourfold set I imagine. There was a profound Valentinian influence in Rome.

outhouse

and yet you still fail.

sorry bud.






#1 why would John a jew, write a roman, anti jewish piece?



#2 why are multiple authors or groups of authors attributed by most scholars today ??



#3 what quality of work do you have over scholars to trash their hard work?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john


the Gospel was written[5] c. AD 90. It is notable that, in the gospel, the community still appears to define itself primarily against Judaism,



according to most modern scholars, John was not the author of any of these books.


the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[14][15][16][17][18][19] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD

Adam

You seem to know so little about my thesis that you think I attribute all of gJohn to this John the son of Zebedee. The Discourses are the main anti-Jewish parts of gJohn, and I say Nicodemus wrote these as unrepresentative extracts intended to be used to prosecute Jesus. The Signs Gospel was written by Andrew and the Passion Narrative by John MarkI was young at the right time, during the Golden Age of source-criticism of gJohn in the 1970's. Kysar gave a bad review of Teeple in 1975 (that he retracted 30 years later), so the key to unravelling gJohn was lost. I have a rare gift to be able to synthesize several disparate views and yet generate new insights of my own. Other scholars can analyze, but I can go beyond that and learn something new. Plus I'm a Contrarian, so I don't just accept what anyone has to say. Thus I never saw any value to Form Criticism as such, and its presuppositions have now largely been pushed aside, even though I worked eagerly with some of its better applications as by Teeple.

I stand in awe of very so many scholars who generate ten footnotes per page for hundreds or even thousands of pages. I don't have such organizational or detail skills. It may help that I can forget things so I can meet each new fact or idea with an open mind, thus seeing the big picture.

This post is worth replying to, because you did some research, if only to Wikipedia. Yes, I agree that gJohn was composed in layers, and the Apostle John was not the primary writer. However, gJohn shows no indication of experiencing the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

outhouse

john has so little historicity for jesus life, its pretty obvious, the group's that wrote it, knew nothing of the man jesus, and focus on building a roman version a mythical charactor.


biased christian scholars are all that are taking a real look as john as a source

outhouse

common knowledge at that point, as well it was a source of embarrassment that he wasnt the true jewish messiah.



no credible scholar claims outside 90-100 ce

Adam

I gave you too much credit for research, outhouse.
You apparently got no farther in Wikipedia than note 44 about 90-100. Immediately thereafter earlier dates are suggested by credible scholars such as J. A. T. Robinson and Leon Morris. Dropping farther down to "Historical Reliability of John", Notes 102 and after soundly support gJohn. True, this part does not reiterate the early datings, but the scholars quoted here are from the traditionalists who had long settled on 90-100 as the dates, the old unholy alliance between the radicals and the conservatives. Scholars without prior commitments to late dating have no objections to dates before 70 CE. Some scholars don't set any earliest possible date to gJohn, but I don't go that far

outhouse

theres only so much I will research common knowledge.

no credible scholars argue the 90-100 date.



and yes I do understand recently more scholars are finding older more reliable historicity that was never viewed as there.

I dont think the roman Johainnine community resposnsible for this book was completely ignorant on jesus life and teaching, but they did get lucky getting a few facts right while writing mythology.


me following the roman Johannine multiple authorship over a long period of time and saying "i dont know" makes much better sense then attributing historicty like you, when its just not there.


claiming partial apostle authorship is just not there in any way shape or form, without imagination from what was not a jewish book or culture responsible