jonatha

I would appreciate learned views on the following questions about the quoted statements regarding the Gospel of John:

"However, as movements of doubtful orthodoxy sprang up in the second century, some clear distinction had to be made as to which were merely the product of imagination and which were truly authoritative. The criterion of authority was that the true Gospels must conform completely to the oral teaching of the apostles themselves."
- What support (other than Church tradition) is there for the cited "criterion of authority"?

- What evidence is there that ties the Gospel of John when first written to the events it describes? (In other words, what makes us think the oral tradition the Gospel of John sets down in writing was faithfully and accurately transmitted to the author?)

"Before the end of the first century every book of our present New Testament had been written and was highly treasured although they had not yet been assembled in one volume. This process of assembly, however, was almost complete by the end of the second century. Whenever it was certain that an apostle had written a book or authorized its writing, that book was deemed indispensable and incorporated into the canon of Scripture."

- How controversial is the assertion that all of the New Testament was in written form by AD 100?

- How many books were part of the canon prior to the Council of Nicea at which the present arrangement of the Bible was codified? (At least I think that's when it was - none of the websites I've found that discuss the First Council of Nicea in 325 mentions this, which seems strange if that's really when e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, was dispensed with...)?

"... we possess today an early copy of a fragment of John's gospel (verses from John 18) that as discovered among ancient papyri in Egypt (published by C.H. Roberts in 1935). It is a copy made just after the end of the first centruy, most probably from the very manuscript that John wrote..."

- Is the early 100's date for the fragment referred to generally accepted?

- What basis is there for the assertion that the fragment is a first generation copy?

"...according to scholars in the science of textual criticism, the copying of manuscripts has been so accurate that there is uncertainty about only one one-thousandth of the New Testament..."

- I was under the impression that there was very little source material from before AD 200 or so; how can the claims of accuracy be defended?

"...because of 20th century archaeological discoveries, there was a wave of scholarly opinion that the main lines of John's gospel took shape in Palestine ... before the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple in AD 70. ... So eminent a scholar as W.F. Albright is on record to this effect."

- Is the cited date for the origins of the Gospel of John generally accepted?

- What is W.F. Albright's reputation?

Toto

Read <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html" target="_blank">"The Formation of the New Testament Canon"</a> in the SecWeb Library for the answers to most of your questions.

Briefly, there is no evidence that convinces anyone outside the church that the canon reflects the teaching of any apostles, or that the Gospel according to John recounts events that actually happened, or that it was written before 70 CE.

Layman

This is probably pointless, but I'd really like to see your sources and authorities that prove that no one "outside the church" believes that the Gospels reflects the teachings of the Apostles (none of it?). And that no scholar "outside the church" believes that John recounts events that actually happened (none of it?).

Is E.P. Sanders someone "outside the church"? Because he believes that many of the things recited in John actually occurred.

Vorkosigan

I would appreciate learned views on the following questions about the quoted statements regarding the Gospel of John:

"However, as movements of doubtful orthodoxy sprang up in the second century, some clear distinction had to be made as to which were merely the product of imagination and which were truly authoritative. The criterion of authority was that the true Gospels must conform completely to the oral teaching of the apostles themselves."
- What support (other than Church tradition) is there for the cited "criterion of authority"?

This description contains several problems. Non-orthodox views sprang up much earlier that the second century; it appears likely that Christianity either grew out of, or alongside them.

When the canon was finally officially codified, there was no way to know the oral tradition of the apostles.

- What evidence is there that ties the Gospel of John when first written to the events it describes?

None. The gospels are legends fabricated for theological purposes. There is no reliable method for determining whether they are history or not, and probably no history at all in them. Were they any other collection of documents, scholars long ago would have identified them as the legends they are.

(In other words, what makes us think the oral tradition the Gospel of John sets down in writing was faithfully and accurately transmitted to the author?)

2000 years of inertia and Christian doctrine. Fundamentally, there is no evidence that John is even setting down an oral tradition. Many scholars assert this, but they do not have the methodology to show it.

"Before the end of the first century every book of our present New Testament had been written and was highly treasured although they had not yet been assembled in one volume.

Hogwash. Several books are generally thought to be from the second century, for example, the dueteropaulines. You can get some idea from Peter Kirby's awesome website at

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com</a>

This process of assembly, however, was almost complete by the end of the second century. Whenever it was certain that an apostle had written a book or authorized its writing, that book was deemed indispensable and incorporated into the canon of Scripture.

It is not generally thought any named disciple of Jesus wrote any of the Christian texts. The apostlesre a different crowd, first century missionaries who were spreading proto-Christianity around the Med basin. The disciples of Jesus are apparently later inventions of the gospel authors. Paul was apparently one of the early apostles, and his writings are the only ones largely accepted by scholars as being by the person they are attributed to, and even then, only 7 of the letters are considered authentic Pauline letters.

In any case, the early versions of the "canon" included letters not now in the canon, such as Hermas.

- How controversial is the assertion that all of the New Testament was in written form by AD 100?

Extremely. Dating the NT writings is one of the most controversial areas. Conservatives tend to prefer dates prior to 70 for as many documents as possible. The mainstream prefers dates after 70 but prior to 120. Dating after 120 is considered radical.

- Is the early 100's date for the fragment referred to generally accepted?

Sort of. It was redated in the 1980s to AD 175. However, the 125-150 dating for p52 is the most common one.

What basis is there for the assertion that the fragment is a first generation copy?

Nil. It is a little different than the John we now possess, and may not even be a fragment of that gospel, but instead a fragment of a related or source document.

"...according to scholars in the science of textual criticism, the copying of manuscripts has been so accurate that there is uncertainty about only one one-thousandth of the New Testament..."

Also hogwash. See Carrier's article <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.html" target="_blank"> relating to this here</a>. In fact 99% of the hundreds of thousands of errors are meaningless, but some are more serious.

You can see from Carrier's article that the critical text is a construction, a best guess.

- I was under the impression that there was very little source material from before AD 200 or so; how can the claims of accuracy be defended?

By shouting loudly that one's opponents are "daft," "bashing," or "bigots."

- Is the cited date for the origins of the Gospel of John generally accepted?

Here's a question: what is the proper date of a gospel which evolved over a century and was redacted and edited continuously? Which borrowed pieces from other documents that predate it, and has stories in it that were not concocted until much later in time ("let he who is without sin...")?

- What is W.F. Albright's reputation?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Albright was a conservative whose views on Bible history were fundamentally determined by his conservative religious beliefs. He is respected as a pioneer, but his conclusions have been supplanted by more up-to-date work.

Vorkosigan

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

jonatha writes: What support (other than Church tradition) is there for the cited "criterion of authority"?

What do you mean? Do you want evidence that church officials attempted to make sure that canonical books conformed to what they understood to be the oral apostolic tradition?

jonatha writes: What evidence is there that ties the Gospel of John when first written to the events it describes? (In other words, what makes us think the oral tradition the Gospel of John sets down in writing was faithfully and accurately transmitted to the author?)

Uh, do we think that in the first place?

jonatha writes: How controversial is the assertion that all of the New Testament was in written form by AD 100?

It depends on which circles you are in. It would be uncontroversial in Grand Rapids, perhaps, but much more controversial at Claremont.

I myself think that the probability is low. Suppose that there is an 80% chance that 1 Peter is from the first century, an 80% chance that Luke-Acts is from the first century, a 70% chance that John is from the first century, a 70% chance that 1 John is from the first century, a 70% chance that 2&3 John are from the first century, a 70% chance that Jude is from the first century, a 50% chance that the Pastorals are from the first century, and a 40% chance that 2 Peter is from the first century. These probabilities are assigned as independent of each other (although this may not strictly be true due to literary dependence, it simplifies things and should be safe enough for this little exercise). Even with these generous estimates (in my opinion), and assuming that the rest of the NT has a 100% chance of being from the first century (even more generous), we arrive at a .8 x .8 x .7 x .7 x .7 x .7 x .5 x .4 = 3.07% chance that the entire New Testament was in written form by the year 100.

Then there is the matter of interpolation. The Longer Ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultura are defined as part of the New Testament by the Council of Trent, but it is doubtful that these interpolations were made in the first century.

Of course, I do not see any reason why a Christian could not agree that portions of the New Testament were written after the year 100, especially if that Christian is not keen on historical apologetics.

jonatha writes: How many books were part of the canon prior to the Council of Nicea at which the present arrangement of the Bible was codified?

It is something of an urban legend, propagated by both Christians and skeptics, that the biblical canon was codified at the Council of Nicaea. Such a statement is never accompanied by references to the relevant ancient sources. Some of those sources have been compiled by Roger Pearse here.

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html</a>

The first extant canon of all and only our twenty-seven books is from Athanasius in 367 CE.

jonatha writes: Is the early 100's date for the fragment referred to generally accepted?

According to Udo Schnelle in his introduction to the NT, a rough estimate of the first half of the second century is all that is justified by palaeography: "The result for the dating of p52 is that the 125 CE period, usually given with extraordinary certitude, must now be stated with some doubt. One must at least allow a margin of 25 years, so that one could think of a dating around 150."

jonatha writes: What basis is there for the assertion that the fragment is a first generation copy?

I have no idea, unless this is only an attempted inference from assumed dates regarding GJohn and p52, if they are close together in time.

jonatha writes: I was under the impression that there was very little source material from before AD 200 or so; how can the claims of accuracy be defended?

I am not sure what to say. Why don't we ask the question in a more general way? How can we ever be sure that nth generation manuscripts accurately reflect the original, or can we?

jonatha writes: Is the cited date for the origins of the Gospel of John generally accepted?

No, a date before 70 CE for the main redaction of John would be controversial. Even many conservative scholars would hold that John was written as late as the 90s, which is in accordance with church tradition. But compare J.A.T. Robinson in _The Priority of John_.

jonatha writes: What is W.F. Albright's reputation?

Does it really matter?

best,
Peter Kirby

offa

Offa;

The "Gospel of John" was dictated (not written) by JC.
His hands were crippled and he was unable to write. John's
instructions were to take care of JC's mother and his wife.
Jesus had access to the sacred garments worn by the priests
of old. At the crucifixion these garments were taken by "the
soldiers", (Herod Agrippa, the last king of the Jews.), and
John's mission was to recover them. John's role as Eutychus
was discovered when he stole these garments back in Rome. He
got off the hook when he told Tiberias that Agrippa
and Caligula "Little Boots" were plotting against him. John
was able to return to Jerusalem where he and JC wrote John.
This book astounded the Jews in a derogatory way. In this
book the "Mysteries of the Bible" were revealed. It was
written in Pesher and this language is not understood
to this day. This language reveals the true locations of
Jerusalem and Egypt (according to Scripture). It tells us
that Jacob's real name was Heli and that Joseph's real name
was Clophas.
Simon Magus was JC's best friend when JC was a Samaritan.
Then Saul (St. Paul, a descendant of Herod the Great) shows up
and turns JC into a Christian Jew. When JC had said, "It is finished"
he submitted to Roman authority as a Samaritan. When Saul
discovers Jesus at Damascus (pseudo location) Paul is
surprised because he thought he had been executed. Paul then
converted to JC's religion and vice versa. The new "religion"
allowed JC to renege on "It is finished". The society became
a secret society.
In a plot engineered by Simon Magus, Agrippa drank
poisoned wine (Acts 12:23). Simon Magus, as an angel, struck
Agrippa dead. Only Samaritans are angels and Magus,
crucified with Jesus, (the angel in the cave) was that angel.
The "royal robes" that adorned Agrippa were the clothes he
took during the crucifixion.
In the The Catholic Bible, on page 203, the
editor notes, "12,23 They returned to Jerusalem:
"many manuscripts read "from Jerusalem" since 11.30
implies that Paul and Barsabas are already in Jerusalem.
This is a problem with pseudo-locations and reading
Scripture literally. Jesus did not get crucified in
Jerusalem nor was Moses ever in Egypt. Josephus was never in
Galilee.

Offa; I stand by what I have written. I write by my knowledge
and will not waste your time by having you click on another
URL. I cannot quote sources because I can not find any,