And, of course, my scholarly sources are NOT atheistic. From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):
The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.
Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)
Many more sources too.
Unless you are going to claim that the late Father Raymond Edward Brown was an athiest, you really should stop with the attacks, and actually LOOK at what the legitiment scholars say.
When it comes to looking at scholarship and truth, I would trust a Raymond Brown , who had a TH.D and taught in a major Catholic university over someone whose books showed a lot of poor scholarship, bad logic, and extremely biased research (such as Josh McDowell). I don't know the other two.
The biggest critism I have about many (not all) of the apologists is that they start out with a specific viewpoint, and reject or misinterpret the information that is available to fit their predeterminted viewpoint.
When it specficially comes to such works as John, they start with the concept it was written BY John, and will not look at the historical or internal evidence. For example, the gospel of Luke specifically says within it that the author of Luke was taking it from other sources, yet I have seen people claim that the Gospel of Luke was writen BY the apostle Luke.
IMO, you need something more than just faith, and the reliance on some hick authors to be able to make a valid evaluation about things.
And, you know, I think you are looking at the Gnositic stuff in the wrong light. Yes, the Gnositic stuff is not of your belief, and I certainly would not want to try to get anybody to actually believe it, but it is certainly interesting in it's own right from a historical point of view.. on the ways that different groups religious beliefs developed,and trying to understand why some of those survived,and others did not.
The part I don't like about innerancy, is that the contortions that people have to go through to try to explain obvious contradiction, both religious and historical. For example, I have yet to find one person who believed in Inerrency that could explain the contradiction of the date of Jesus's birth between Matthew and Luke. They mention historical events that make their accounts mutually exclusive.
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the King. Herod is supposedly to order all the kids born in that timeframe to be killed (Oh. btw, the Gospel of Matthew is the only source for this accustation, no other source for this story exists). Herod the King died in 4 B.C.E.
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the census that happened when Quintarsis first became govenor of Syria. Judeah first became part of the providence of Syria in the same year. That year was 6. C.E. Before that time, Juddah was supposedly an independant kingdon, and Rome did not have the authority to conduct a census.
So, which year was Jesus born? During the reign of Herod the king< or when Judah had a census when it first became part of the providence of Syria? There is a 10 year historical gap in there.
This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:27 AM
This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:30 AM
Well, the basic one is to say that Quintiliuswas actuallygovenor to Syria twice, (Based on a tablet that mentioned a mentioned someone that MIGHT fit into a govenor of syria, but whose name has been destroyed.).
However, there is no evidence that Quintilius was actually govenor of Syria twice, nor would the Roman empire have the authority to ask for a census in Judah before 6 C.E. So, as I said, I have seen no apologist 'explaination' that makes any kind of sense. It is enough that many latch on to the non-explaination to save their face for them.
Why , they even bring out the idea of someone coin that alledgedly has information in micro-engraving on the coins edge to 'prove' that. However, there are no pictures of the coin, just the person who alledgely found it's hand drawing of it!