aChristian

Thanks for the info.

aChristian

If you read what I wrote earlier, I already answered that question.

Diogenes the Cynic

There ARE no historical accounts. Papias and Polycarp were not historians and their claims do not hold up to evidence. You really seem to have little or no idea of where contemporary scholarship is on these issues. The burden is on YOU to prove that an apostle named John wrote GJohn. As it stands, there is no proof that such a person even existed, no evidence whatever that he wrote the 4th Gospel and plenty of evidence mitigating against that possibility.
Nope. Afraid not. John 9:22 is factually wrong. The expulsion from the synagogues did not occur until more than a half century after the alleged crucifixion. You are welcome to provide any evidence to the contrary, but I'll tell you right now that it doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as "liberal scholarship." There is good scholarship and bad scholarship. It's painfully obvious that you have read very little of the former. You have demonstrated no knowledge at all of the most mainstream scholarship.
No I don't. You claimed that the failure of the author to identify himself as an apostle named John is not proof that he wasn't the apostle John. My response is that while your statement is true, it is meaningless. You still don't seem to understand that is is you who has the burden of proof. It is not my burden to prove it wasn't the apostle John anymore than I have to prove it wasn't Donald Duck.
John 21 was not part of the original book but was appended later. It was not written by the author(s) of the original Gospels.
There are no reputable scholars who dispute Markan priority. Don't confuse fundy apologetics with scholarship.
I don't need a "document" because I don't have the burden of proof, you do. Nevertheless, it's clear from the book that the author did not know Peter nor does the author claim to have known Peter.

Rather than write out the whole argument against the traditional authorship for Mark, I'll just quote from a previous thread of mine, Shredding the Gospels in which I ran down the cases against the traditional authorships of all the gospels. I heartily recommend that you read the whole thread. Here is my section against the traditional authorship of Mark:
Neither Papias nor Polycarp knew John the Apostle. They knew someone named "John the Presbyter" (or John the Elder). Irenaeus confused this John with the apostle but both Eusebius and Papias himself indicated the the Presbyter and the Apostle were two different Johns. Irenaeus claims to have been writing about his childhood memories of Polycarp and he either misunderstood or misremembered which John was which.
They had no reliable documents and no access to any reliable information about what happened.
There is no such thing as "liberal analysis" and you clearly aren't aware of the quite mainstream scholarship on these issues.
There is no such thing as "liberal analysis" and you clearly aren't aware of the quite mainstream scholarship on these issues.
Name one.
Name one who disagrees with me.
Name one.
In a manner of speaking, yes. I have access to more and better information.
Whatever Christian literature Eusebius had. it did not translate into accurately recorded history.
He got it from Christians.
No, the Church gave him the title.
Sure they would. That doesn't mean they think he wrote accurate history.
Name an objective historian who thinks that Eusebius wrote accurate history.
Inother words, by nobody who was in any position to klnopw better.

If you've actually read it (which I doubt) and believed everything in it then you're an extremely credulous person.
I don't "want" the history to say anything. I don't care. I don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean. I'm just telling you about some traditions that don't hold up to analysis. I'm not substituting anything in its place.
How about citing some of this serious scholarship you keep referring to.

jakejonesiv

Who, Eusubius? He vouched for the autheticity of the ridiculous exchange of letters between King Abgarus and Jesus Christ. :rolling: Church History, Book 1, chapter 13. Since he is so obviously wrong in this, I don't see why anything else he wrote would have credibility.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv

We don’t have any copies of the alleged books written by Papias, only quotations by Eusebius and Irenaeus, and no copies of Irenaeus that quote Papais older than Eusebius.
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1ff cf Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 5.33.4

Eusebius wrote that Papias allegedly wrote {that Ariston allegedly said} that Prester John (whoever!) allegedly said that Mark allegedly wrote about what Peter allegedly said about what Jesus allegedly did.

This isn’t history; it is hearsay of the most laughable sort.

Jake Jones IV

Julian

aChristian,
could you please let us know the names and works of some of these scholars you refer to? I have only ever heard the claims you make in apologetic literature and I, for one, would be curious as to what your sources are.

Also, please note that the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. You asked for proof that Papias was not referring to GMatthew which was provided to you, like Matthew was in greek originally and not a logia. You have not supplied any evidence other than referring to scholars, none of whom you have mentioned. You are passionate but not convincing, you have provided us with nothing outside of the bible which, of course, cannot be used for evidence of the bible. Show us how we are wrong. I for one have seen nothing erroneous in Diogenes's posts.

Julian

Dean Anderson

It always amuses me when Christians cite this passage as "proof" that the "Gospel of John" was written by the disciple John - when in fact it does the exact opposite.

Even disregarding the fact that John 21:24-40 is part of a later interpolation, this section explicitly demonstrates that "John", the "Beloved Disciple" was not the author.

Look at verse 24 (emphasis mine)...

Here, the author is explicitly referring to John in the 3rd person, and referring to himself in the 1st person, in the same sentence.

If the author was John, then why would he say this? The very act of saying that we know that his testimony is true can only be grammatically interpreted one way - that the he in the sentence (referring to John) is not the author of the sentence.

More to the point, it says that the author could be anyone except John. John is the one person in the world excluded from writing that passage.

Vicki

It's amazing how "conservative" (read Christian presuppositionalist) scholars are always the "serious" scholars.

jakejonesiv

Oh, good point! Good good good :notworthy

anthony93

Well, this thread really went off topic a bit....however, this cought my eye...

Quote:
Originally Posted by aChristian
You need to read some conservative scholars. They would dispute your claim.
Serious scholarship confirms my version.


By conservative scholarship, you mean someone who already holds the orthodox party line and reads the scripture accordingly?
If not, then who do you mean? References please.

and this...

Originally Posted by Pervy
It always amuses me when Christians cite this passage as "proof" that the "Gospel of John" was written by the disciple John - when in fact it does the exact opposite.

Even disregarding the fact that John 21:24-40 is part of a later interpolation, this section explicitly demonstrates that "John", the "Beloved Disciple" was not the author.

is pretty hard to refute. In fact to take it a bit further

...There is mention of a "disciple whom Jesus loved" in 13:23, 19:26, 20:2 and 21:7-20. However, it is thought the Beloved Disciple may also be the unnamed disciple in 1:35, 18:15 and 19:35. So we get a picture of one of the earliest disciples, whom Jesus loved especially, who leaned on his breast and who asked him questions the others were too scared to ask. This disciple was present during the Crucifixion, along with Mary and other women, and is said (21:24) to have written the Gospel. This disciple is also the first to believe the resurrection, and is promised long life in 21:22. However:-

We cannot know that the unnamed disciple in 1:35 is the Beloved Disciple, as he is not named. This applies to the other references to an unnamed disciple.

If "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is John's title for himself he was both very arrogant, and has also chosen strange times to put himself in. If the author was claiming that, as an eyewitness he could know the truth about what happened, why did he only include himself in passages which have other disciples there and which have parallels in the Synoptics? It would be more valid a claim had he named himself as being present while Jesus was on the cross, for instance, but he did not do so.

Who wrote the Gospel of John?
http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/john.html