Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

you -- notably, by your own criterion of what constitutes a classical scholar (i.e. knowing Greek and Latin) -- cannot even claim to be a classical scholar, let alone a second rate one. So you tell me.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Who were those scoundrels in the eighteenth century to whom the reviewer compares to Ross who attempted to shake the foundation of the fourth gospel? Who were these scoundrels, since which time historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus?

We now know that these eighteenth century scoundrels, the peers of Ross, who attempted to undermine the authority of the fourth gospel were actually successful in doing so in the field of ancient history.

I count this as a small blessing. These guys deserve some credit, Who were they? Does anyone know?


Best wishes


Pete

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think (but an not sure) that you meant to say nineteenth century (ie in the 1800s) not eighteenth century (ie in the 1700s)

On the substantive point; various writers such as Cassels in Supernatural Religion sought in the late 1800s to argue that the Gospel of John was written too late (eg after 150 CE) to be apostolic.

Although most modern scholars (wrightly or wrongly) to not regard the 4th Gospel as Apostolic they mostly (wrightly or wrongly) accept an earlier date (eg around 100 CE). Hence although they may in some sense partly agree with the conclusions writers such as Cassels they do so on rather different grounds.

Andrew Criddle