Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 03-11-2010, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark A. Matson

2. The argument for John’s possible influence on other gospels, thus asserting a literary priority for John in at least some special cases, is relatively recent in biblical scholarship and there has not been sufficient time for this idea to percolate through the scholarly community. If sustained in any degree this will provide a compelling argument for an early date of John. [Emphasis added.]

Or a very late date for the synoptic gospels.

Chili · 03-11-2010, 08:02 AM

It is not easy to harmonize the 4 gospels in such a way that they are inerrant and actually compliment each other in those differences. It is what makes them one instead of four but as four stanza's of one poem that tells the whole story.

maryhelena · 03-11-2010, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Or a very late date for the synoptic gospels.

Quite fascination actually - that the whole dating scenario re the gospels - might well have got things - re the order of the gospel storyline - back to front....

Easy, I suppose, what with the gospels showing revisions, updates or what have you, that the dating has concentrated on the last update instead of trying to determine, and to follow, a logical development of the storyline.

Quote:

Mark A. Matson
Current Papers and Projects

http://www.milligan.edu/Administrati...son/papers.htm

One element of the Qumran literature that is striking is the cluster of similarities it shows with some of the distinctive theological perspectives found in the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps most striking in this regard is the strong dualism which marks both the Dead Sea Scrolls and John. This dualism was often in past scholarship was attributed to Hellenistic influence, thus distancing it from the Palestinian Jesus tradition. But this dualistic perspective, especially that seen in the contrast of light and dark, which is taken to represent the concept of good and evil, is certainly a pervasive element in the Qumran literature. Clearly this feature in John must now be counted as a reflection of Jewish ideology, not Hellenism, especially the way that it is framed around the God of Israel and founded on strong creation foundations.

So, if GJohn is re-dated as the earliest gospel, the historicists are going to have to face a high Christology from the get go - and the mythicists are going to have to face the very real possibility that Paul had more to work with than simply his visionary experience...

andrewcriddle · 03-11-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

How about this translation:-

There is a trust which provides the foundation for the existence of that which is hoped for and makes the critical examination of invisible things possible.

IOW, the text is talking about a type of trust, specifically trust in God (i.e. trust in the sense that he will do as promised, not trust in sense that we are recommended to believe the bare proposition of his existence on no evidence). This is clear from the immediately preceding passage (10:39):-

But we will not be the ones who shrink back in fear so that we are destroyed, but the ones who trust him so that our souls are preserved.

IOW, the meaning isn't that you ought to believe any old bollocks about stuff outside your experience, it's that if you follow the arguments for God's existence (principally, the impossibility of a natural causal explanation for the Universe as a whole - "what is seen was not made out of things that are visible") then you will naturally trust that he's as good as his word - that's what folks did in the olden days, etc., etc.

I'm dubious about the translation, (I don't think hypostasis has the philosophical meaning here although elenchus may do so), and I am very doubtful indeed about interpreting the passage on the basis of 'natural theology' arguments for God the Creator.

However if you want a more unambiguous example of faith as belief see 2 Corinthians 5:6-7

Quote:

Therefore we are always full of courage, and we know that as long as we are alive here on earth we are absent from the Lord – for we live by faith, not by sight

Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge · 03-11-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However if you want a more unambiguous example of faith as belief see 2 Corinthians 5:6-7

Quote:

Therefore we are always full of courage, and we know that as long as we are alive here on earth we are absent from the Lord – for we live by faith, not by sight

What makes you think this is about belief and not trust?

Try this (from the interlinear online):-

Therefore [we are] always
confident, knowing that, whilst
we are at home in the body, we
are absent from the Lord:

(For we walk by faith, not by
sight

We are confident, [I say],
and willing rather to be absent
from the body, and to be
present with the Lord.

Now compare and contrast with Advaita talk about the "I am the body" idea:-

The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Soon he discovers that his own body he cannot be. Once the conviction: ' I am not the body' becomes so well grounded that he can no longer feel, think and act for and on behalf of the body, he will easily discover that he is the universal being, knowing, acting, that in him and through him the entire universe is real, conscious and active.

A much more likely interpretation than some old tosh about belief

i.e., they walk by trust in this experience, not ordinary perception.

Doug Shaver · 03-12-2010, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, if GJohn is re-dated as the earliest gospel . . . the mythicists are going to have to face the very real possibility that Paul had more to work with than simply his visionary experience...

I'm not so sure about that. The conventional dating of John is sometime around the turn of century, and that would not have to be revised if the synoptics were written sometime in the early second century -- which is what quite a few of us mythicists believe. There is still no reason to suspect Paul would have had any inkling of anything John had to say about Jesus.

maryhelena · 03-12-2010, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, if GJohn is re-dated as the earliest gospel . . . the mythicists are going to have to face the very real possibility that Paul had more to work with than simply his visionary experience...

I'm not so sure about that. The conventional dating of John is sometime around the turn of century, and that would not have to be revised if the synoptics were written sometime in the early second century -- which is what quite a few of us mythicists believe. There is still no reason to suspect Paul would have had any inkling of anything John had to say about Jesus.

It does look as though the conventional dating for GJohn might be undergoing a re-think. And as for a mythicist position - well, any particular mythicist position that depends upon the shifting sands of NT dating might be in for a big downfall...Its the gospel storyline - regardless of attempts to date the various written forms of that storyline - that should be the primary focus. As for Paul - that consensus dating leaves much to be desired.

The basic mythicist position is that the gospel Jesus is not a historical figure. That position does not depend upon any dating structure. Hence re-dating GJohn very early would not negate the basic mythicist position - albeit it might cause problems for some versions of this position that rely upon late dating.

If its early Christian history we are after - as opposed to developing scenarios re just what was Paul on about - then any movement towards establishing a better, a more logical, development of the gospel storyline, should be welcomed. Dating GJohn pre 70 ce is beginning to sound a good idea to some of those involved in this field.

The gospel storyline re Jesus is not historical - hence dating the written forms of that storyline does nothing whatsoever for a historical inquiry into early Christian history. All dating can do, if that dating is accurate, is date the developing Jesus storyline. The history of the time period in which the gospel storyline has been set (all four gospels agreeing on Pilate - between 26 -36 ce) that history has already been dated - and, as far as I can see, there are no moves afoot to do any re-dating in that regard. The mythicists have no need whatsoever to 'fight' any move towards re-dating GJohn prior to 70 ce - such dating of the written form of the gospel storyline is secondary to whatever historical core might have been significant to the early Christians. History and an interpretation of that history, an evaluation of that history through a particular lens, are two pictures not one picture. History and the gospel story. The gospel story is the square peg that will not fit into the round historical hole.

Quote:

http://www.doctrine.org/gospelofjohn.html

Date

Many biblical scholars, particularly in the last century, dated John relatively late, i.e in the middle to late 2nd century. Some of the reasons scholars believed the Gospel was written late were the following:

• The sophisticated theology of the Gospel could not have been conceived early
• There was no evidence of the use of John by early 2nd century writers
• John's Gospel seems to have had been revered by 2nd century Gnostics
• John's Gospel depended on the Synoptic Gospels (if dated late) as sources

These ideas and theories have been largely rejected and current scholarship has begun to move the dating back. The primary reason has been the discovery of early 2nd century papyri manuscripts of John. One papyrus fragment, the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52), which records John 18.31-33, 37-38, has been dated as early as 130 A.D. Most biblical scholars date John around 80-110 A.D. However, there are good reasons to believe that John was written earlier, i.e. before 70 A.D.

The most compelling reason in my mind for an early date is that John makes no mention of the destruction of the Temple or of Jerusalem. The Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in 70 A.D. If the Temple had been destroyed after John wrote his gospel, it stands to reason he would have made some mention of it. But in his account, the Temple is still standing. The present tense in John 5:2 "there is" suggests that the gate is still standing, which it wasn't after the destruction by Titus. The present tense in this passage is the only one in the immediate context--the writer uses imperfects for the rest of the description. This appears gives it special significance. Of all the NT writings with the exception of Hebrews and Revelation, the 4th Gospel would be the most likely to contain an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem since the focus of this gospel is on the rejection of Messiah by 'His own'--1:11. The visitation and rejection must mean divine judgment. Ultimately, the temple (2:21) is replaced by Christ himself. Yet in Chapter 2 there is no mention of Jerusalem's fall. Instead, Jesus' prophesy is seen as a prophecy, not of what the Romans would do in destroying Jerusalem, but of the events of AD 33--what the Jews would do to Jesus. With an author as reflective as John, it is very strange that he would not connect Jesus' words with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had they been destroyed at the time of writing. Elsewhere in the Gospel (4:6, 11:18, 18:1, 19:41) John assimilates such topographical descriptions into the context. The natural inference is that John is writing while the building is still standing.

Another link re early pre 70s date for GJohn

Quote:

http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-j...gument-outline

B. Date

Most scholars date this gospel c. 90s-100. There is a growing number of scholars, however, who place it sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Apart from J. A. T. Robinson’s radical redating of John to the fifth decade of the first century (a view which, to my knowledge, almost no scholar has found palatable)

1. A Late Date (90s)

Arguments for a late date are as follows:

(1) Patristic writers normally date this gospel after the synoptics.

(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemy of Jesus suggests a late date—i.e., a time when the Jews had become the confirmed enemies of the church.

(3) Assuming that John used the synoptic gospels, and assuming that Luke and Matthew were written in the 80s, John must be dated no earlier than the 90s.

(4) The lack of reference to Jerusalem’s destruction points to a date either before 66 or quite a bit after 70.

(5) The theology of John is highly advanced, especially its Christology. It is assumed that this cannot be true of a work written in the 60s.

(6) The affinities with 1 John, in which nascent gnosticism seems to be fought against, argues for a late first century date.

(7) John’s ecclesiology (water baptism in John 3, the Lord’s Supper in John 6) point to a late date.

(8) The reference in 9:22 to the formerly blind man getting booted out of the synagogue is a cryptic allusion to Jewish excommunication of Christians, which did not happen until the 80s.

Of these eight arguments, numbers 5, 6 and 8 are normally considered to be the weightiest. In any view, number 5 is quite strong, since this gospel not only has a high Christology, but also is far more reflective and penetrating on the salvific work of Christ than are the synoptic gospels.

Against these arguments, however, are the following considerations.

(1) Patristic citations on dating of NT books are notoriously faulty. They are far more reliable on issues of who than of when or why. Further, in our view, John still would be the last gospel penned, even though it would not have been written until c. 65.

(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemies of the church could easily be a pre-70 statement, especially if the audience lived outside of Palestine. Further, John almost always uses “the Jews” in reference to the Jewish leaders, not the populace in general.

(3) The assumption that John used the synoptic gospels is not at all proven. In fact, both P. Gardner-Smith and C. H. Dodd have argued (and cogently, I think) that John was completely independent of the synoptic gospels. In our view, the idea that the fourth evangelist used any of the synoptic gospels runs into insurmountable difficulties, for it not only has surface contradictions (e.g., the time of the cleansing of the temple, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, etc.), but there is also much material which would have been beneficial to put in this gospel had the author had ready access to it. Nevertheless, even if John had employed the synoptics, in our view, this does not militate against a date before 65 CE. Unless one is prepared to argue that the Olivet Discoursemust be a vaticinium ex eventu, there is no strong reason to date any of the synoptics after 70.

(4) The lack of reference to Jerusalem’s destruction is much more in favor of an early date than a late one, especially since this is the one gospel which focuses on Jesus’ Judean ministry.

(5) Although John’s theology is highly advanced, it is so only when one measures it against the historicalbenchmark of the synoptic gospels. But once it is seen that John’s gospel has a more decidedly theological thrust to it (giving an inner and reflective picture of Christ, rather than an external and action-packed picture of Christ), there is no reason why such a gospel could not be produced in the 60s. When one compares the theology of John with the theology of, say, Romans (written in the late 50s), or Philippians (c. 62 CE), its Christological development is very much in keeping with Paul. To be sure, certain points do seem advanced (e.g., the use of “Savior” to refer to Jesus, or the explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity in 1:1), but no more so than what is found in the Pastorals or Hebrews. If those books are pre-70 documents, then there is no theological reason to deny this to John. and even if the Pastorals and Hebrews are not pre-70 letters, the theological development seen in John fits quite nicely on a trajectory ten years beyond Romans and four or so years beyond Philippians.

(6) The affinities with 1 John, and the anti-gnosticism and anti-docetism of that letter, are parallels which do not compel a late date. That is to say, we are quite uncertain about the origins of docetism/gnosticism. Surely there was incipient gnosticism taking root in the last third of the first century. Further, the anti-docetic theology of 1 John is no stronger than that of Colossians—a book which many scholars who hold to a late date for John would regard as authentic.

(7) John’s ecclesiology is so subtle in chapters 3 and 6 that commentators are still not decided as to whether any ecclesiological implication can be made from these chapters. Further, even if we assume a sacramental interpretation on these chapters, what is to say that this could not go back to the historical Jesus? Although the church continued the practice of baptism and communion, they did not invent either one. Only if the criteria of authenticity (specifically, the criterion of dissimilarity with Jewish or Christian practices) could be legitimately used in a negative way could we say that John put dominical sayings on the lips of Jesus. But even here, there is no reason to posit a late first century date, for the sacraments are mentioned already in 1 Corinthians (late 50s)!

(8) Finally, the reference in 9:22 as an allusion to the third Sitz im Leben of the community, although repeated so often in commentaries as fact, is quite ambiguous. Only on the assumption that the blind man would certainly not have been kicked out of the synagogue, could one read the excommunication of the 80s into this verse. Analogously, in light of Jesus’ treatment at Capernaum, and Paul’s treatment in the synagogue of Thessalonika (to name but two examples), the verse reads as a simple piece of unembellished narrative.

2. An Early Date (60s)

There are a number of data which strongly suggest a date in the 60s, chief among them are the following.

(1) The destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This fits extremely well with a date before 66 CE.

(2) The topographical accuracy of pre-70 Palestine argues that at least some of the material embedded in the gospel comes from before the Jewish War.

(3) There is much primitive terminology used in this gospel. E.g., Jesus’ followers are called “disciples” in John, not apostles.

(4) The conceptual and verbal parallels with Qumran argue strongly for an overtly Jewish document which fits well within the first century milieu.

(5) The date of P55 at c. 100-150, coupled with the date of Papyrus Egerton 2 at about the same time—a document which employed both John and the synoptics—is almost inconceivable if John is to be dated in the 90s.

(6) John’s literary independence from and apparent lack of awareness of the synoptic gospels argue quite strongly for an early date. Indeed, this independence/ignorance argues that all the gospels were written within a relatively short period of time, with Matthew and Luke having the good fortune of seeing and using Mark in their composition.

(7) Finally, there is a strong piece of internal evidence for an early date. In John 5:2 the author says that “there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool (the one called Bethesda in Hebrew) which has five porticoes.” Without discussing all the interpretations possible for this verse suffice it to say that (a) the verb “is” ( ejstin)cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE.35 By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE.

In sum, we believe that a pre-70 date for the Fourth Gospel is the most probable one. Further, we believe that this gospel should be dated late in 65 or even in 66, for the following two reasons: (a) it is doubtful that it should be dated after 66, because otherwise the lack of an Olivet Discourse in which many of the prophecies were at that time coming true, is inexplicable; (b) the gospel should perhaps be dated after Peter’s death, as we shall see when we examine the purpose.

my bold

Elijah · 03-12-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Agreed, if one works from GJohn the synoptic storyline seems to follow on more logically. First the Logos/Wisdom interpretation, evaluation, then the New Covenent of Mark, then the prophecies and birth narratives of Matthew, then the 're-birth' (6 ce) and the 15th year of Tiberius datestamp of Luke (wisdom, ideas etc - never static...mythology on the move....)Yes, the writer of GJohn thinks Jesus is the messiah - and Mark, Matthew and Luke, later, start filling out the storyline and searching for evidence within the OT. (which is basically what some mythicsts are saying re Paul and his vision - but its perhaps GJohn had the storyline first and Paul joined the party later.....)

I can see this but the concerns I would have with John being first is that it’s just too good and too correct with what Christianity became. That’s not much evidence and I may just be clinging to an old bias I can’t shake.

You mentioned in another post in this conversation about Paul having something to work with and I hadn’t really considered the possibility of Paul coming in contact with the Johannian community or John and got his ideas that way. There is no reason he shouldn’t and it would need to be reasoned why he wouldn’t have encountered them during his travels. They meet if we go with Acts right?. But the GJohn is soooooo on track with the idea of eternal life for belief Jesus as the messiah that it leads me to believe it was written after there was an ideological shift that way because of Paul with the gentiles.

Looking at the difference between Mark and the other two, (going from what’s supposed to be in Q), it looks like a product of the works vs. faith debate that Paul brought to the table as well. It could be that Paul got the idea from John or an associate but I have always thought of it as an idea that came out of necessity. If they wanted to spread the message to the gentiles then they were going to have to redefine what makes someone a Christian because the Gentiles weren’t going to be accustomed or that willing to follow the Jewish customs, especially if it meant putting a knife to you know. Even though Jesus may have followed the law and his early disciples may have as well, the point wasn’t necessary or helpful if they were going to spread the message about Jesus being the Christ to all the nations.

IMO Mark looks like the more law abiding Jews have a Proto Gospel that includes all the works statements and someone on Paul’s side went in and cut out all that leaving just a guy making prophesies and miracles with hardly any ethics teachings. (He does still tell the rich guy to give up his wealth) It could go the other way around where they add this stuff in later but it’s just an easier thing to imagine them recording all what they thought was important but as some time went by the realized that the ethics teachings weren’t the crux of the story but them gaining faith in him as the messiah was so they did a cut down and then later a retelling from the perspective of faith in him as the messiah was the key to eternal life without all the ethics stuff or end time prophecy to get in the way.

I think the martyrdom angle is so prominent with the talk of eternal life that the idea of death had to be prominent in the writers mind. Now it could be they wrote it soon after the death of Jesus but it seems more likely that it was after the martyrdom of the apostles started and the last few figured out that was what was important and figured they better write something down before having to face their own death’s.

The prediction of Peter’s death at the ends probably means that he is dead already and added to his brother’s James earlier martyrdom (IIRC) that would give the emphasis I think you can see in John. Also the feeding his sheep line would suggest the movement had went passed just evangelizing that the messiah had came to at least the beginning of building the churches and providing for the poor. The kingdom of god may have been a strictly ideological movement early but when that didn’t pan out as planned, the building of the churches and providing for people started to be what some saw as the mission’s focus.

John also has the only two blatant mentions of going at the rulers (12:30, 16:11) by Jesus in the gospels and Paul also makes a similar comment in 1 Cor 15:24.

The main problem I have is I just have no idea how big this movement was to even guess at the conflict between John and the synoptics. Were the people who wrote these gospels representatives of movements and large collections of people with different ideologies or was it just a few religions nerds like us here, just trying to make sense of something that happened until something was reasoned out and became popular?

Quote:

Sure, Change does not rest with Obama alone - although it rests upon him now to live up to that earlier perception of him. Something similar with the Logos/Wisdom with the gospel Jesus in GJohn. The Logos/Wisdom picture is far bigger than any one characteristic or personification of it. (My comment, earlier, re the Word became flesh - the idea became reality etc - that's just a modern day take on things....

)

Perfect. You explained it in only four words, you win. Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought the high Christology was more than just title talk in John.

Quote:

Philo is an interesting case - now that would be a turn for the books if Philo had a hand in GJohn - that is aside from a simple influence re ideas...that would at least date GJohn prior to his death in 50 ce.

I don’t know about him having a hand in it but maybe someone who was familiar with his ideas. The quote was unnecessary since you didn’t have a crazy understanding of the logos stuff to begin with.

Quote:

Yes, that’s the general picture of Marcion - but he was also on another mission - that of removing as much as he could get away with re Jewishness of Jesus from his gospel. The Jewish genealogy, the nativity, the cleansing of the temple, Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. Marcion was not going to have his Jesus storyboard confined to being a fulfilment of OT Jewish prophecies. His Jesus ‘came down to Capernaum’ - a bit like the Logos/Word coming down from the Father into the world in GJohn.....

Yea if you have a problem with their god then you are going to have a problem with the society that you think it produced. The Marcion heresy was just an attack on anti-Semitism within Christianity maybe?

andrewcriddle · 03-12-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However if you want a more unambiguous example of faith as belief see 2 Corinthians 5:6-7

What makes you think this is about belief and not trust?

I'm not sure whether we are actually disagreeing here. I quite agree that NT faith is about personal committal not just about assenting to various dogmas.

What is the distinction between belief in Christ and trust in Christ ?

Andrew Criddle

spamandham · 03-12-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Or a very late date for the synoptic gospels.

Exactly. The anachronism I referred to was not relative to 85 CE, but relative to the chism between Jews and Christians resultign from the Bar Kochba revolt. That's the time at which Christians were no longer permitted in the synagogues and were persecuted by Jews - IMHO, the simplest explanation for John 16 is that it was written after the Bar Kochba revolt.

This doesn't negate the idea of John's priority though, it simply requires a later date for the synoptics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2010, 08:02 AM	#162
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	It is not easy to harmonize the 4 gospels in such a way that they are inerrant and actually compliment each other in those differences. It is what makes them one instead of four but as four stanza's of one poem that tells the whole story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.