Johnny Skeptic

Johnny Skeptic wrote: You said that the article by Jackson was in the Journal of Theological Studies, which is obviously biased against mainstream scholarship towards claiming that the author of the book of John was John the disciple of Jesus.

<S.C.Carlson> replied: If you would like to make credible statements about what kind of scholarship the Journal of Theological Studies represents in general or what specific claims are made in Jackson's article, it might help to actually read them rather than rely on inferences from what Microsoft's encyclopedia did not say.

Johnny: As the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica both clearly state, with no doubt whatsoever (I will quote them again if you wish), the majority of scholars are not willing to defend John the disciple of Jesus' authorship of the book of John. What you are implying is "a MINORITY of scholars ARE WILLING to defend John the disciple of Jesus' authorsip of the book of John. You can choose to throw a general consensus of modern scholarship right out of the window if you wish (of course, except whenever you believe that it best suits your arguments to agree with modern scholarship) and attempt to replace the methods of modern historiographical research with the methods of historical reseach used by the Journal of Theological Studies, but you won't get very far with that approach. Actually, one need not be a scholar in order to conclude what should be obvious to anyone. John 21:24 says "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." The only "these things" that I am interested in is claims regarding the appearances of Jesus. "We know that his testimony is true" probably includes the appearances of Jesus, and the verse might easily mean "We know that his testimony is true based upon what we heard", as opposed to "what we saw." The Greek word for testify is "martureo," which can mean something that is seen "or" something that is heard. In another post I mentioned Luke 24:33-34 as being an example of a belief that was initially based solely upon something that was heard, and only based upon the testimony of one man. The verses read "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon."

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says "Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, “the beloved disciple� of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John's teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel's place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, in about AD 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background.

The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says that most scholars maintain the following hypotheses about the authorship of John:

"Chief among these hypotheses are that the fourth canonical Gospel was written by 'the elder' mentioned in the Second and Third Epistles of John (see Joh, Epistles of); that is was composed by a disciples of John the Evangelist (and so was based, in part, on John's recollections of the Gospel events); that it may have been written by a friend of Jesus Christ, Lazarus of Bethany; or that it was written by an anonymous Christian in Alexandria in the first half of the 2nd century. Most moderate scholars now date John from sometime in the last decade of the 1st century or early in the 2nd century."

hughmcjr

Johnny Skeptic does not qualify as being eyewitnesses testimony either.

GakuseiDon

... except towards the existence of Delux editions of encyclopedias... :angel:

Johnny Skeptic

Humcjr wrote: Johnny Skeptic does not qualify as being eyewitnesses testimony either.

GakuseiDon replied: Except towards the existence of Delux editions of encyclopedias.

Johnny: <deleted>Where do you <deleted> think that encyclopedias get their research data from? From scholars who hold minority opinions? No, the Microsoft Encyclopedia said that "most" scholars will not defend John the disciple of Jesus as being the author of the book of John. The encyclopedia is not speaking for itself, but for most scholars. You <deleted> need to produce some corroboration from a number of experts. Why haven't you done so?

You <deleted> are good at sarcasm, but how good are you in moderated formal debates? I'll bet lousy. How about a debate on homesexuality, same sex marriage, physician assisted suicide or the Terri Schiavo case? I am pretty sure that both of you <deleted> will head for the hills.

Amaleq13

Johnny,

Encyclopedia articles are generally based on a survey of at least some of the original scholarship on a topic. They do not offer as comprehensive or in-depth an understanding of the topic as directly considering the original scholarship, itself.

Also, IIUC, S.C.Carlson's reference to Jackson does not entail the assertion that the author of John or even the author of the addition actually was obtained from an eyewitness but how the "eyewitness statement" in the text would have been understood at the time.

Johnny Skeptic

Amaleq13 wrote: Also, IIUC, S.C. Carlson's reference to Jackson does not entail the assertion that the author of John or even the author of the addition actually was obtained from an eyewitness but how the "eyewitness statement" in the text would have been understood at the time.

Johnny Skeptic: That is just the point. We don't know how people took it at the time. In 'The Rise of Christianity,' Rodney Stark estimates only 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., or in my words, about the size of three good size high schools. Stark's estimates have the support of a good number of scholars. If Stark et al are correct, and there are not any good reasons at all to assume that they are not correct, then we know exactly how people understood it at the time. The vast majority of them rejected it.

Robert Price told me "I agree completely. We don't even really know who 'the disciples' were, much less how long they lived or what of the gradually forming gospel tradition they ever heard of!"

S.C.Carlson

Bingo. :thumbs:

Amaleq13

I think you would need to read Jackson's article before you could render that judgment because he appears to argue that we can know how people took it at the time by comparing it to other examples.

Johnny Skeptic

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Also, IIUC, S.C.Carlson's reference to Jackson does not entail the assertion that the author of John or even the author of the addition actually was obtained from an eyewitness but how the "eyewitness statement" in the text would have been understood at the time.

S. C. Carlson replied: Bingo.

Johnny: Thank you both for proving my topic statement which reads "John 21:24 does not qualify as being eyewitness testimony." My reason for starting this thread was to show that there are not any reasonably provable eyewitness accounts in the Gospels, or even any reasonably provable second hand or third hand accounts.

How were the testimonies taken at the time? Were they believed? In 'The Rise of Christianity,' according to Rodney Stark and a good number of other scholars, in the 1st century only a very small relative handful of people accepted the testimonies, which stands to reason if Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The texts make many claims, but when the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? In my previous post I mentioned that noted skeptic scholar Dr. Robert Price told me "We don't even really know who 'the disciples' were, much less how long they lived or what of the gradually forming gospel tradition they ever heard of!"

The 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples are the chief eyewitness evidence used by Christians. I have already adequately refuted the use of the disciples as eyewitnesses when Mark was released. There is no evidence at all that the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses
is identiafiably Pauline, of even that it was originally written in the 1st century. Robert Price agrees, and he told me that the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses does not appear anywhere in Christian literature until sometime in the 3rd century. That is quite understandable since even though eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, and the more eyewitnesses the better, the Gospels never mention the 500 eyewitnesses, in spite of frequent mention of issues of much less importance. I am well aware that some Christians will claim that the Gospels were not intended to be apologetic arguments. To that I reply "Then why attempt to use them as apologetic arguments?"

I look forward to S. C. Carlson's reply.

Julian

For Johnny Sceptic; It would be really nice if you would please begin to use the quote function. Without it, your posts are almost illegible.

Julian