Vinnie

If Winace was still with us I'd nominate this for honorable mention. :frown: Though it it stemming from language barriers so it would be a bit unfair.

Vinnie

Vinnie

It is a late addition.

aa5874

This passage was found in the link This cannot be shown to be true. You have no idea or corroborative information whatsoever that anyone named John who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus wrote anything.

The apostle John was a fictitious character in the Jesus God/man myth story, no such character ever existed.

The Gospel of John must be a compilation of fiction with different versions. One with the 21st chapter and one ending at the 20th.

Vinnie

Your english is a work in progress I see. It is conventional to refer to those texts as John, Matthew, Luke and Mark even if you don't accept traditional authorship.

Most are not going to write out "the anonymous gospel attributed to John in the christian canon" but instead are going to refer to this text as John and say the "gospel of John says" or "John wrote".

Vinnie

aa5874

But, didn't I just SAY that the Gospel of John must a compilation of fiction with different versions. One with the 21 st chapter and one ending with the twentieth?

You have some kind of English probem?

Vinnie

I was responding to this:

"This cannot be shown to be true. You have no idea or corroborative information whatsoever that anyone named John who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus wrote anything."

which only serves to illustrate my point.

Its no big deal though.

Vinnie

the_cave

Please read the evidence I presented, namely the link to the David Ross page. Ross himself references Evan Powell's The Unfinished Gospel. The argument is that Jn 21 was added to gJohn after the rest of gJohn was written, and was drawn from material that was originally included in Mk 16, at least in one version of gMark (a version that is now lost to us).

Why don't you just read the page I gave you the link to? It's pretty easy. I'm not going to re-do Ross' work when it is all laid out pretty clearly right there. When you go there, scroll down to the section "The Missing Ending of Mark". The thematic and vocabular links are numerous.

It is a late addition to gJohn--or, so goes this theory. Personally I think there is good support for it.

The long ending of gMark clearly seems to be a summary of the resurrection appearances in gMatthew and gLuke. But we say it has not been "reattached" because gMatthew and gLuke still have those endings, and the author of gMark has only summarized them.

In the case of Jn 21, the original ending to gMark is no longer there. Hence we say it has been "reattached". (However, this may be a little misleading--the original ending could have differed from Jn 21 in some ways. But Jn 21 does not look like a summarization, in the way that Mk 16:9-20 is, so our guess is that Jn 21 duplicates the original ending of gMark mostly accurately. There is some uncertainty.)

aa5874

I can't read lost evidence. This must be some kind of joke.

You claimed earlier that there is evidence now it is LOST. Please find it first.

JoeWallack

JW:
Superior Skeptic Neil Godfree has already done the legos work tracing Justin's references to different Gospels:

Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative

It should be clear that Justin was familiar with:

1) "Mark"

2) "Matthew"

3) "Luke"

4) Proto-evangelium of James

5) Gospel of Peter

He probably was not familiar with Canonical "John" as the % of references to unique material that has higher Christological value in "John" is significantly lower than %s for the others (this is known as "Methodology" Vinnie). "John" looks like it was originally Gnostic and converted to orthodox so it may have existed in some form in Justin's time but he did not consider it authoritative. Also, the Gospel of Peter is more evidence against Papias referring to "Mark" as the Gospel of Peter was authoritative before "Mark" was named and would not have been named "Peter" by anyone who thought Peter was behind "Mark".



Joseph

aa5874

It is NOT true AT ALL that it is clear Justin was familiar with any named Gospel.

It is ONLY clear that Justin was familiar with the Memoirs of the Apostles and that the Memoirs of the Apostles contain words or passages found in the Synoptics, mostly gMatthew.

And it is also clear that Justin was familiar with a writing called Acts of Pontius Pilate and a Revelation whose author he called the apostle John.

Justin's reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate is an example to show that Justin did not have to be familiar with the Synoptics in order to quote passages that appear similar.

First Apology 35 Justin Martyr showed complete non-familiarity with any NT canon or Church system of bishops. He made NO references to Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters or the Epistles of James, Jude, John or Peter.

Justin described what was read on Sundays in the churches. "First Apology" 62

Now Justin did name the prophets that wrote. He did NOT mention the name of any apostle who wrote the Memoirs.

Excerpts from First Apology by Justin Martyr. It is clear that Justin was familiar with the names of the Hebrew writings and prophets, and clear that Justin was NOT aware of any named Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

See www.earlychristinwritings.com .