Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Late Great Debate on the Disciple John
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 1 of 39 (410677)
07-16-2007 5:07 PM


The First Epistle of John was written by the writer of the Gospel of John. He was deep in the experience of being a Christian. He develops and continues theological themes put forward in his gospel.
This is not a statement on which was chronologically written first. This is a proposal of mine that First John is a subjective and experiencial continuation of truths presented in the Gospel of John by the same beloved disciple John.
His epistle is a road map to help the believer in Christ into a deeper experience of the indwelling divine and eternal life that they have received.
John's writing is divine and mystical. It is experiencial and subjective. But it is coherent and fascinating to the seekers of the truth.
Now why don't you think it is John who continues his thoughts in the First Epistle of John, which he put forth in the Gospel of John?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 7:24 PM jaywill has replied

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 39 (410684)
07-16-2007 5:42 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 39 (410695)
07-16-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jaywill
07-16-2007 5:07 PM


Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
The First Epistle of John was written by the writer of the Gospel of John. He was deep in the experience of being a Christian. He develops and continues theological themes put forward in his gospel.
This is not a statement on which was chronologically written first. This is a proposal of mine that First John is a subjective and experiencial continuation of truths presented in the Gospel of John by the same beloved disciple John... Now why don't you think it is John who continues his thoughts in the First Epistle of John, which he put forth in the Gospel of John?
Because there may have been at least three to four separate John's in the New Testament.
The first was John the Baptist.
The second was the Apostle John.
And the third was John the Revelator.
Some scholars have speculated a fourth, John the Presybyter. I happen to think that John, the author of Revelation, was also the author of first, second, and third John. But I'm not definitive about it. The writer of the epistles could have also been the Apostle John.
Its a pretty common misunderstanding that people have. They see the name, John, or (Yochanan in Hebrew, which was a common name back then) and assume the Bible is referring to one person.
I suppose the authoriship is secondary to the message. But it still is an interesting topic to me.
Anyway, hope that helps.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jaywill, posted 07-16-2007 5:07 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jaywill, posted 07-17-2007 7:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 4 of 39 (410760)
07-17-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Its a pretty common misunderstanding that people have. They see the name, John, or (Yochanan in Hebrew, which was a common name back then) and assume the Bible is referring to one person.
Many of us realize that in the NT there is more than one John, more than one Mary, and even more than one Jesus for that matter.
The comparable style and tone of First John with the Gospel of John indicate the same author.
The parallels between the two books are too numerous.
GJ - "In the beginning was the word ...in Him was life ..." (1:1,4)
FJ - "That which was from the beginning ... concerning the word of life" (1:1)
GJ - "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness ..." (1:4,5)
FJ - "God is light. And in Him is no darkness at all ... the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1:5;2:8)
GJ - "And the word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (1:14)
FJ - "In this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (4:2)
GJ - "Abide in Me and I in you" (15:4)
FJ - "And now little children, abide in Him ... Everyone who abides in Him does not sin ... (2:28;3:6)
GJ - "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me (14:6).
FJ - "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (5:20)
GJ - "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of reality" (14:16)
FJ - "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous ..." (2:2)
GJ - " ... I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (8:12) ... Jesus then said to them, The light is still among you a little while. Walk while you have the light so that darkness may not overcome you; and he who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe into the light, so that you may become sons of light" (12:35,36)
FJ - "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from every sin (1:7) ... He who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now (2:9) ... the darkness has blinded his eyes (2:11) ... He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause of stumbling in him" (2:10)
There are numerous other parallels in style and tone between the two writings. I believe that the very aged apostle John was still there to impart his considerable wisdom and insight to the younger generation. Jesus implied that John would outlive the other disciples.
And the writer of the First Epistle refers to disciples of all ages as "little children." He towered over them in experience and cared for them affectionately.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-26-2007 10:07 PM jaywill has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 5 of 39 (410824)
07-17-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jaywill
07-17-2007 7:33 AM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Jaywill wrote:
This is a proposal of mine that First John is a subjective and experiencial continuation of truths presented in the Gospel of John by the same beloved disciple John.
OK, I heard two different claims in your OP. Correct me if I’m wrong - they were:
1. The authors of the 4th gospel and of 1st John are the same person.
2. That person is John the son of Zebedee, the disciple mentioned in the Gospels.
Now, these are two very different claims, each with different requirements needed as evidence.
Your main concern seems to be on claim #1, so I’ll address that one first.
The comparable style and tone of First John with the Gospel of John indicate the same author.
The parallels between the two books are too numerous.
There certainly are many clear parallels, starting from the very first verse of each book. This has been noticed for years, and could suggest many things, such as that the books were written by the same person, that one was influenced by reading the other, that they both were influenced by common subcultural (i. e. Christian) stories/thoughts, that they were both influenced by something prevalent in all human culture, or other reasons.
Of all those, the first two seem the most likely to me, because as Jaywill pointed out, the parallels are pretty specific. It was very common in the ancient world, as it is today, for one literary work to influence another. I don’t know how many fantasy novels I’ve read that sounded just like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings - except with different names and some differences in storytelling. In another example, one could list all the nearly exact parallels between Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” and the Gospel of Luke, but that certainly wouldn’t show that the same person wrote both - only that one influenced the other, which no one denies.
Secondly, did someone named John write either of them? The Gospel never claims to be written by John - that’s only a later Catholic tradition. I didn’t see anything in 1st John that said “I’m John writing this” - did I just miss it?
Scholars have speculated on the same author issue, some seeing the style as similar enough, others seeing the style of 1John as a stripped down and imperfectly copied version of the style of the 4th gospel. So at least the style doesn’t rule it out (such as if one claimed that the 4th gospel and Romans were written by the same person). Yet, at the same time, the style doesn’t seem to support the idea of the authors being the same person much either.
I don’t care much either way if the authors are the same person or not - it neither supports nor refutes my own beliefs - nor indeed the tenets of Christianity, which would be mostly unaffected if the authors were the same or different people. Based on the evidence, I’d say that the idea that the authors are the same could indeed be true, but that we don’t have enough evidence to say much either way, so the conclusion should be left in doubt at best. Being that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I’d have to see more from Jaywill before I’d say that we have good reason to think they were the same author.
************* second claim ******************
OK, now the second claim, that the 4th Gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ disciples.
There is almost no evidence supporting this claim. Here is what we have in support:
1. The Catholic tradition that this is the case - which doesn’t really tell us much, other than the fact that later Catholics thought so in the late 2nd century.
2. The “beloved disciple” line in chapter 21. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, it only says that this “beloved disciple” wrote this gospel - it doesn’t say who that beloved disciple is, and there is nowhere in the gospel that says something like “I’m John, the beloved disciple, writing this”. Secondly, and more importantly, chapter 21 is well known to be a later addition tacked on the end by someone else. That’s supported by changes in the greek, the previous ending in 20:30, the content of chap 21, and the fact that Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd century, says it ends without the verses in Chapter 21 (there were no chapter numbers then of course - he refers to content).
OK, what evidence suggests that the 4th gospel wasn’t written by John the son of Zebedee, the disciple:
1. Even our oldest manuscripts are in very good, sophisticated greek. This seems unlikely from an uneducated, lower class peasant like John.
2. Elsewhere (Acts 4:13) says that John was illiterate.
3. Many, contradictions between the 4th Gospel and the synoptics strongly suggest that whoever wrote John wasn’t an eyewitness (as John the son of Zebedee would be), and the 4th gospel itself says that it wasn’t written by an eyewitness, but rather based on the reports of eyewitnesses. (we can get into listing these if we like).
4. Anachronisms in the 4th Gospel argue against an eyewitness as well.
5. The Gospel of Mark (written around 70 CE) says that Peter and John were (will be) martyred - which is difficult to square with the idea of John writing the 4th gospel, which wasn’t written until the turn of the century.
So, overall, your first claim could be true, but it’s hard to know one way or the other, while the second claim does appear to have evidence against it, and little in favor of it.
Thoughts? Thanks-
-Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : fixed error
Edited by Equinox, : added Tertullian testimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jaywill, posted 07-17-2007 7:33 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jaywill, posted 07-17-2007 11:40 PM Equinox has not replied
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 07-18-2007 6:38 AM Equinox has not replied
 Message 8 by jaywill, posted 07-18-2007 7:04 AM Equinox has replied
 Message 9 by jaywill, posted 07-18-2007 12:06 PM Equinox has not replied
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 07-19-2007 6:12 AM Equinox has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 6 of 39 (410920)
07-17-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Equinox
07-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
So, overall, your first claim could be true, but it’s hard to know one way or the other, while the second claim does appear to have evidence against it, and little in favor of it.
You put forth the idea that First John simply could just indicate influence of the Gospel of John, but not authorship by the same disciple.
I suppose this line of logic could be taken further to say that chapter two of First John only shows influence from chapter one, yet they could have been written by two different people. Then again chapter three of the Gospel of John just shows influence from chapters one and two. But maybe chapter three was penned by a different person than chapters one and two.
We could take it further, that the sixth through tenth verses of chapter one of the Gospel of John only show influence from the same ideas of another writer in sentences one through five.
Of course a person's writings also can be an influence on the the same person's writings of another document. This is hard to argue with.
Another point about the authorship of the Gospel of John, was it the son of Zebedee?
Throughout the Gospel of John the disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned. Also you have the mention of "the other disciple". Let us say at this point a particular disciple seems to be highlighted occasionally in the Gospel of John.
The disciple whom Jesus loved seems to be brought together to indicate the same person who has written something:
Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also reclined on His breast at the supper, and said, Lord, and what about this man? Jesus said to him, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.
This word therefore went out among the disciples, that that disciple would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?
This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things, and the one who has written these thingsl and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books written. (John 21:20-24)
I agree that I can't absolutely prove that John of Zebedee is the author of John's Gospel. But consider the passage above.
The writer speaks in first person finally in verse 25 - "I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books written". It is reasonable to assume that the "I" speaking there is the writer of the very things being read. But who might he be?
The "disciple whom Jesus loved" is the testifier and the writer of "these things". The very things which the reader is reading about has been testified by "the disciple whom Jesus loved". I think that "the discple whom Jesus loved", who testifies of "these things" and has written of them, is the same writer speaking in first person - "I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books written"
That is the closest we may come to reading, ie. "I am the disciple who Jesus loved who is writing these things. And I am aware that there are many many other things which could be written - more than what the world could contain."
Now the title "the disciple whom Jesus loved" calls for some comment. This is my opinion. Of course Jesus loved all of His disciples.
" ... knowing that His hour had come for HIm to depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the uttermost." (John 13:1)
Jesus loved ALL of the disciples, including Judas his betrayer. How can there be one unique disciple whom Jesus loved?
I think the phrase reveals two main ideas:
1.) It shows that disciple's humility. He is saying in essence:
" I am not one special. I am only the disciple whom Jesus loved. What I am doesn't matter. That Jesus loved me. That is what matters. What I did or what I accomplished means little. What means something is that Jesus loved me. Who am I? I am nobody special. I am only the disciple whom Jesus loved. His love makes me special. Nothing in me myself makes me unique. It is only because Jesus loved me, that makes me unique."
What was most memorable and most precious to this disciple was that he was loved by Jesus.
I am still on topic folks!
2.) The second thing it reveals, I think, is that this disciple may have been more aware of the love of Jesus than the others. He really appreciated it. Sure Jesus loved all of the disciples. But the writer singles out "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who was more acutely aware of Christ's love. That disciple was more deeply impressed with that love of Christ. That disciple was more deeply impacted that "This Jesus loves me. I am loved by this Wonderful Lord."
My opinion is that John, the son of Zebedee, was somewhat more deeply impressed and affected with the awareness that he was the object of the love of Jesus. Yet of course, all the disciples were loved by Jesus.
To this writer, the love of Jesus was probably the most wonderful thing in the universe. And he humbly identified himself in his gospel
inconspicuously, in third person as, "the disciple whom Jesus loved".
Now look again at this passage with an open mind:
"Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved ... This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things, and the one who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, ... I SUPPOSE ... that not even the world itself could contain the books written." (my emphasis)
IF anyone wants to argue and say, "Well, it could be someone else saying "I suppose" beside the disciple whom Jesus loved who testifies and has written", a case could conceivable be made to that end.
I think the simpler likelihood is that this was John's, the son of Zebedee of the twelve, autograph on the Gospel he wrote.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 7 of 39 (410960)
07-18-2007 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Equinox
07-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
5. The Gospel of Mark (written around 70 CE) says that Peter and John were (will be) martyred - which is difficult to square with the idea of John writing the 4th gospel, which wasn’t written until the turn of the century.
Could you please elaborate on this a little further?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 8 of 39 (410962)
07-18-2007 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Equinox
07-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
OK, what evidence suggests that the 4th gospel wasn’t written by John the son of Zebedee, the disciple:
1. Even our oldest manuscripts are in very good, sophisticated greek. This seems unlikely from an uneducated, lower class peasant like John.
To be fair to Equinox, I suppose I should respond to as many of the points as I can. He obviously has done some research on the issue. And I am happy to do more into the issues raised.
Now concerning this point above, Equinox mentions the well written Greek as not becomming of a uneducated fisherman. Equinox refers to Acts 4:13:
"And as they beheld the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were uneducated men and laymen, they marveled and they recognized them, that they had been with Jesus."
I don't think it is their ignorance in the Greek language which priests were struck by, but the authority with which the disciples testified, not having religious credentials. They were very bold.
The educated priests probably thought that these fishermen had no cause to speak so authoritatively on theological themes. After all they were not theologically educated. The issue is their boldness was out of place with their religious credentials.
Of course their real credentials was that they had been with Jesus. It was the power and influence of being with Jesus which the priests hugely under estimated.
My second point is that the disciples did things in teams very often. They did then and today also work in cordination and cooperation. There was and is often a harmonious co-working of disciples for a common cause.
Case in point, Paul's letter to the Romans, was penned by Tertius:
"I, Tertius, who write this epistle, greet you in the Lord" (Romans 16:22)
This indicates that Paul seems to have dictated and Tertius was the actual scribe writing down Paul's sentences.
It could very well be that John also was assisted by someone writing down what he told him to write. If John was not well versed in written Koine Greek (which I don't know if the case or not), he could have very well been assisted in writing as Tertius labored with Paul.
Many of us have a "go it alone" mentality. We are quick to assume everything of value is self initiated, self carried out, self appointed, and for self glory. I can easily see an aged disciple John, the son of Zebedee, being assisted in his elderly life by another disciple.
They moved as a team. They were impressed with the importance of what they were doing as a team. And they coordinated often as a team.
Maybe, someone who COULD write high class Greek, assisted the aged Apostle. His job would be to faithfully record and yet polish up language wise, that which the elderly (fisherman) apostle dictated. It is a possibility.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Equinox, posted 07-18-2007 3:55 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 9 of 39 (410991)
07-18-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Equinox
07-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
3. Many, contradictions between the 4th Gospel and the synoptics strongly suggest that whoever wrote John wasn’t an eyewitness (as John the son of Zebedee would be), and the 4th gospel itself says that it wasn’t written by an eyewitness, but rather based on the reports of eyewitnesses. (we can get into listing these if we like).
First of all, by what rule is it established that a fourth gospel writer has to say everything the other three gospel writers already said?
Why does it not occur to some people that John could have purposely emphasized aspects of his impressions of life with Jesus that other gospel writers did not emphasize?
Without presenting at this point a rigorous defense, this is how I honestly believe these things unfolded. John wrote his gospel around 90 AD, years after the other gospels had been written and circulated. I think he may have been one of the few remaining of the first generation of disciples. Damage had come into the church.
John was a mender. He was a repairer. He came to bring the distracted Christians back to the beginning of things. This is why he repeats this phrase "from the beginning".
"The phrase from the beginning is used four times in the Gospel of John, eight times in this epistle, and twice in 2 John. In John 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 2:13-14; and 3:8, it is used in the absolute snense; whereas in John 6:64; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 2:7,24 (twice); 3:11; and 2 John 5-6, it is used in the relative sense."
[Footnote 1(2) of First John 1:1 Recovery Version. LSM]
John was concerned in his old age with bringing the distracted and Gnostic hassled Christians back to the beginning of the gospel of Jesus. That means back to Jesus as the divine life of God imparted into the disciples. God was embodied in Christ and imparted into the believers. God is to be lived. And God is indwelling the disciples to unite them in love and in life.
Whereas Peter's ministry stressed the resurrection of Christ, and Paul's ministry stressed the communal living of the Christian life in local churches, John's late ministry stressed coming back to the beginning, the Source of the Christian life. Jesus is the divine and eternal life of God manifested among men and dispensed into the believers.
I don't doubt that there were many disciple Johns. I doubt that there were many who had the spiritual maturity to write the things we see attributed to John.
In the Old Testament Daniel had three companions. They were spiritual and they loved God as Daniel did. They were together and they were harmonious. But the three others were dependent upon the wisdom of Daniel. They had limitations. Daniel exceeded them in insight into prophecy.
There may have been many Johns. I think that the John the son of Zebedee was atypical in stature and spiritual maturity. And God chose this one to write the last gospel and the last of the epistles in the New Testament. I also believe that God used this one to write the last book of the New Testament and indeed the final word of the entire Bible.
God entrusted to this disciple the final word in a number of matters related to His divine revelation. I agree that there were a lot of Johns as there were a lot of Marys. I don't think there were a lot of Johns who had that much apostolic authority to write the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 10 of 39 (411039)
07-18-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jaywill
07-18-2007 7:04 AM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Hi Jaywill - thanks for the prompt and detailed responses!
Jaywill wrote:
First John simply could just indicate influence of the Gospel of John, but not authorship by the same disciple.
I suppose this line of logic could be taken further to say that chapter two of First John only shows influence from chapter one, yet they could have been written by two different people. Then again chapter three of the Gospel of John just shows influence from chapters one and two. But maybe chapter three was penned by a different person than chapters one and two.
We could take it further, that the sixth through tenth verses of chapter one of the Gospel of John only show influence from the same ideas of another writer in sentences one through five.
Yes, that’s all possible, (and appears to be the case in books like Genesis and Exodus), but there we have reasons to suspect that, where as in 1 Jn I haven’t heard a reason to think that. In the case of the G of J vs 1Jn, there are differences, such as the difference in their amount of focus on sacraments, on the different view of the adversaries of the Christianity (the Jews in the 4th Gospel, while it is other Christians -among others- in 1 Jn), plus the fact that they are in two separate books that have been in some canons and not others at least is some evidence to at least start thinking that all or most of each one was written by one author. In the case of the 4th gospel, there is clear evidence that more than one writer wrote different parts of it.
I agree that I can't absolutely prove that John of Zebedee is the author of John's Gospel. But consider the passage above.
That’s a lot of thought on that, but is very speculative, and more importantly is based on parts of chapter 21, which as I mentioned in post #5 is probably a later addition to the Gospel, and as such is irrelevant in guessing who wrote the bulk of the gospel first. You know, whoever wrote the 4th Gospel wrote it specifically to get people to become and stay Christian (see 20:31) - and so it would have been a big advantage to say that this is an actual disciple writing it, so the absence of saying that seems to say a lot.
I don’t know if you are a Protestant, but whether you are or not, it’s always struck me as a bit odd that Protestants often go to significant lengths to argue that John the son of Zebedee wrote the 4th Gospel, when all we have to support that is later Catholic tradition, which they seem quite happy to ignore in most other instances (such as infant baptism, veneration of Mary, and many other similar items).
Maybe, someone who COULD write high class Greek, assisted the aged Apostle. His job would be to faithfully record and yet polish up language wise, that which the elderly (fisherman) apostle dictated. It is a possibility.
It is a possibility (I’m not assuming a go it alone mentality, I know that dictation happened often in the ancient world). But it is also a possibility that the Gospel was written by an educated, Greek-native Christian well after the disciple was dead. This is suggested a bit by 21:23, which seems to make sense if it were written later and added on to explain why Jesus hadn’t returned even though that disciple had died. The idea of a non-eyewitness, non disciple author seems to me to explain all aspects of the 4th Gospel better than the provisions that have to be made to explain away evidence if one presupposes that John the son of Zebedee wrote it.
I don't think it is their ignorance in the Greek language which priests were struck by, but the authority with which the disciples testified, not having religious credentials. They were very bold.
I’m sure that is indeed part of what the author is saying, but part also seems to be “where could they have learned this stuff, since they are illiterate and so couldn’t have read it?”. As I understand it from reading commentary on this (and checking on it myself with my very poor understanding of greek), the greek word used here and translated as “uneducated” actually means “illiterate”. (The author uses the word “”, which means illiterate, instead of using the word “” which means “uneducated”.) So I think both meanings are probably intended - remember that Acts was written by another anonymous, non-disciple Christian, not John , so whoever wrote Acts probably wouldn’t have thought twice about saying that Peter and John were illiterate, since he probably didn’t know of books attributed to them. After all, Acts was probably written toward the end of the 1st century, before the books attributed to John and Peter were written.
Could you please elaborate on this a little further?
(the idea that Mk suggests John the son of Zebedee was martyred.)
Sure. Here is the story in Mk10:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John.
Mt copies the story, and changes it a little in Chapter 20:
Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
"What is it you want?" he asked.
She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.
Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
Both versions of the story suggest that John and Peter will be killed (drinking the cup Jesus will soon drink). The dating of Mt is irrelevant since he simply copied Mk, but the dating of Mk is important. Mk is usually dated to around 65 to 70 CE, giving John and James about 40 years to get themselves martyred and still have it be a memory among the Christian community - something that the author of Mk would want to include as a fulfilled prophecy.
Good discussion. Have a fun evening-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jaywill, posted 07-18-2007 7:04 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jaywill, posted 07-18-2007 7:12 PM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 11 of 39 (411082)
07-18-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Equinox
07-18-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
That’s a lot of thought on that, but is very speculative, and more importantly is based on parts of chapter 21, which as I mentioned in post #5 is probably a later addition to the Gospel, and as such is irrelevant in guessing who wrote the bulk of the gospel first.
Is it more speculative than attaching great significance to the possibility that maybe chapter 21 was a latter addition?
You know, whoever wrote the 4th Gospel wrote it specifically to get people to become and stay Christian (see 20:31)
That is quite obvious by examining the words of Jesus Himself throughout the Gospel of John.
- and so it would have been a big advantage to say that this is an actual disciple writing it, so the absence of saying that seems to say a lot.
Without the specific post script that "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name" (20:31) it is obvious that the writing is intended to produce faith within the hearers.
I don't know what great significance you attached to the absence of some particular saying. You say this says a lot. I don't know what great significance you think this means. And I'm not sure what you claim is missing is really missing. In John 20:31 the author tells us up front why the gospel we have just read has been written.
Unlike Luke or Mark John and Matthew do not suggest that Jesus went away after His resurrection. Matthew ends with Christ saying that He is with the disciples "all the days even unto the consummation of the age." And John's 21rst chapter is similar. It shows Christ training the disciples to live by His invisible presence. He was training them to adjust to the fact that though they could not see Him, He was nonetheless still with them.
It doesn't surprise me that this 21rst chapter is therefore set somewhat apart. After all, the normal Christian life is to Abide in Him and have Him abide in you. It is not to simply collect some objective data about someone who lived once and is now dead and gone.
The New Testament is balanced in its presentation of the whole truth about Jesus. On one hand He ascended to the right hand of God in heaven after His resurrection. On the other hand He is with the disciples in His pneumatic form as "Another Comforter" dwelling within those who receive Him. The 21rst chapter of John shows Jesus getting the disciples accustomed to living by His invisible spiritual presence. As Paul wrote: "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
I don’t know if you are a Protestant, but whether you are or not, it’s always struck me as a bit odd that Protestants often go to significant lengths to argue that John the son of Zebedee wrote the 4th Gospel, when all we have to support that is later Catholic tradition, which they seem quite happy to ignore in most other instances (such as infant baptism, veneration of Mary, and many other similar items).
I don't consider myself a PROTEST - tant. But that the Catholics do have their hands on some significant church history amid their errors, is only a realistic admission of some non-Catholic scholars.
Thier excesses into Mary worship, indulgences, Christmas, Easter, and other deviations doesn't mean that there are no significant things kept by them in terms of early church history.
I don't feel that I have to be sworn to reject all things Catholic. I think we have to discriminate between worthy things to be retained and excesses to be discarded. That is realism.
It is a possibility (I’m not assuming a go it alone mentality, I know that dictation happened often in the ancient world). But it is also a possibility that the Gospel was written by an educated, Greek-native Christian well after the disciple was dead.
Does that require that I believe that there are lies written in the Gospel of John? Does that require that I believe there were misrepresentations designed to deceive and present a case which was not true? If so I have to reject that idea as unrealistic.
The disciples didn't need to use lies to present to the world the One who said that He was the truth. I don't think we should judge the behavior of the early witnesses to Christ's life as similar to TV evangelists of modern day degraded Christianity.
It puzzle me why some people seem eager to point out that this or that "sneaky" thing was going on in passing on to the world the account of the life of Jesus Christ.
This is suggested a bit by 21:23, which seems to make sense if it were written later and added on to explain why Jesus hadn’t returned even though that disciple had died. The idea of a non-eyewitness, non disciple author seems to me to explain all aspects of the 4th Gospel better than the provisions that have to be made to explain away evidence if one presupposes that John the son of Zebedee wrote it.
Again, I simply ask - does this theory of yours require that I believe there is a deception written into the gospel of John to purposely misrepresent actual facts? Does this require that I assume someone was fabricating an effect to deceive under the attitude that the ends justifies the means?
If so, I don't believe this. Christ is genuine, true, real, honest, faithful, pure, valid, trustworthy. I don't think that Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament canon was so hard up to find writers that He had to utilize tricksters to deliver the oracles of God to the world.
Don't misunderstand me. Religious people can lie and cheat. However, I think God used pure vessels to lay the foundations of the Christian church. I don't mean that they were perfect men. I do mean that they were prepared and trained inwardly in character. Their consciences would not allow them to use underhanded methods to spread the gospel.
So I think both meanings are probably intended - remember that Acts was written by another anonymous, non-disciple Christian, not John , so whoever wrote Acts probably wouldn’t have thought twice about saying that Peter and John were illiterate, since he probably didn’t know of books attributed to them.
The book of Acts was written by Luke the physician, a close companion of Paul. Why do you say he was a non-disciple Christian? And why in the world would you say he is anonymous given Acts 1:1,2?
I suppose you mean "non - one of the original twelve disciples". After the twelve disciples there were many other disciples you know?
"The former account I have made, O Theophilus, concerning all the things that Jesus began both to do and to teach, Until the day on which He was taken up, after He had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He chose" (Acts 1:1,2)
The former account to Theophilus was the Gospel according to Luke (see Luke 1:1,2
I guess here also you have a theory of some sneaky and shady conspiracy going on to pull the wool over our eyes. The writer of Luke and Acts doesn't pretend to be an eyewitness to the earthly portion of Christ's ministry. He says:
Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed.
Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, also wrote the book of Acts. He was neither anonymous nor a non-disciple Christian.
Like Paul, who he accompanied in some of the Apostles journeys of ministry, he received the things from the original eyewitnesses who became ministers of the word. Paul however had seen Christ in His resurrection glory on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Equinox, posted 07-18-2007 3:55 PM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 39 (411167)
07-19-2007 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Equinox
07-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Secondly, did someone named John write either of them? The Gospel never claims to be written by John - that’s only a later Catholic tradition. I didn’t see anything in 1st John that said “I’m John writing this” - did I just miss it?
I presented some reasons for my belief that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - "the one who has written these things" (20:20,24) I believe is that John the son of Zebedee humbly refering to himself.
Now in Revelation you do have a specific "I John" -
"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace ... I John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the world of God and the testimony of Jesus ..." (See Rev. 1:1,9)
Now I include God's sovereignty over the production of the New Testament canon. I don't loosely compare the writing of the New Testament with the writing of popular science fiction, or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, or some other pulp fiction.
Here we have the final and concluding word of the entire 66 books of the divine revelation. The John who was entrusted with this climax and consummate writing, I am sure, would have to be someone of unique spiritual stature. The disciple John of the twelve who was so close to the Lord Jesus is a good candidate for such a responsibility.
The writer of Revelation is really like a New Testament Daniel. Daniel specifically prayed and fasted to learn of the future of the nation of Israel which was at that time in the Babylonian Captivity.
Likewise, I believe that the aged Apostle John, the last of the original 12 disciples, was banished to an island. And there he was "in spirit on the Lord's Day" seeking revelation from God about what must have been a disappointing condition of the Christian churches. As great prophecies were entrusted to Daniel so were great prophecies, even the continuation of those given to Daniel, were entrusted to this slave John.
One of the most striking similarities between Revelation and the Gospel of John occurs in the comparison of John 7:37-39 and Revelation 22:1.
Compare:
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.
But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet; because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37-39)
And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb in the middle of its street. (Rev. 22:1)
The Gospel of John speaks of the Holy Spirit flowing our of the innermost being of the receivers of Christ as rivers of living water.
The Revelation speaks of the river of water of divine and eternal life flowing out of the throne of God down the middle of the one street of the holy city New Jerusalem.
This is divine speaking given to us in signs. The innermost being in the gospel becomes one with the throne of God and of the Lamb in the eternal city. The living water flowing out of the innermost being of the believers in the gospel becomes the living water flowing in the midst of the street in the kingdom of God. This means that the constituents walk by the flow of the river. The way the street goes the water flows.
The city is ruled by the throne of God and the Redeeming Lamb Christ. And out of the throne of authority flows the Holy Spirit as the river of water of life. The walk in eternity is governed by the flowing of the Spirit of Christ within the saved. The throne of God
resides in the innermost being of all the inhabitants of New Jerusalem.
I think the revelation is given to the Apostle John in two stages. First, he records for us the words of Jesus that in His glorification, He would dispense and impart the eternal Spirit of God within the innermost being of the saved. Secondly, it was made known to us "by signs" (Rev. 1:1), that in eternity future the saved will walk in the kingdom of God by this divine Spirit. Their innermost being is one with the one central throne of God and the Lamb.
God administrates by dispensing His divine life into man. God carries out the authority of His administration not by coercing man outwadly, but by supplying man inwardly - by quenching his thirst for life.
Of course the idea of the Third Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit flowing up and out of the saved is also seen in John's Gospel in chapter four:
But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall by no means thirst forever; but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life. (John 4:14)
The world cannot quench the thirst of man. But Christ will install within His believers the thirst quenching water which will become in the believer a fountain of water. This fountain will spring up within the believer into eternal life.
Whether John is speaking of the installation of the fountain of the the water within, or the flowing out of the water from the innermost being, or the pouring out of the throne of the water into the street of the eternal city New Jerusalem - thought is the same.
The Triune God, in John's writings, is dispensing Himself into man for man's satisfaction and for God's glory and expression. Eternal life is seen as a Person manifested as the Word of life, crucified and risen, and come again into the disciples in His pneumatic form as the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Reality, the Another Comforter. He is fluid and flowing as water saturating all the inward parts of the personality of the receivers.
Out of this flowing eventually an entire city will be produced with a central throne of God and the Lamb. Here you have the Father as God, the Son as the Lamb of God, the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit flowing out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
John disclosed the Trinity symbolically in both his gospel and the Revelation.
Such consummate revelation was delivered to the disciple whom Jesus loved - John the sons of Zebedee.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Codes for Bolding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Equinox, posted 07-17-2007 1:03 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Equinox, posted 07-19-2007 3:20 PM jaywill has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 13 of 39 (411230)
07-19-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
07-19-2007 6:12 AM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Jaywill wrote:
Equinox wrote:
3. Many, contradictions between the 4th Gospel and the synoptics strongly suggest that whoever wrote John wasn’t an eyewitness (as John the son of Zebedee would be), and the 4th gospel itself says that it wasn’t written by an eyewitness, but rather based on the reports of eyewitnesses. (we can get into listing these if we like).
First of all, by what rule is it established that a fourth gospel writer has to say everything the other three gospel writers already said?
Why does it not occur to some people that John could have purposely emphasized aspects of his impressions of life with Jesus that other gospel writers did not emphasize?
First of all, there are some contradictions between the 4th gospel (I’ll call it 4g for short) vs the others that are not explained by just waving it away as an omission. For instance, you probably saw our discussion of whether or not Peter denied Jesus six times. Others are when Jesus cleared the temple (at the start of his ministry in John, but in the last week of his life in the synoptics), or when Jesus died (on a different day in John), or what Jesus said when he died, or others. If you like, we can start a thread about the many contradictions between 4g and the synoptics, but here it is off topic.
Secondly, whoever wrote 4g didn’t just randomly fill in stories that weren’t covered in the synoptics. He (I’m assuming he was a male, though it has been suggested that the author of 4g was a woman, some even suggesting Mary Magdalene, which I don’t buy for a number of reasons) was an intelligent, skilled writer, and had a purpose to what he wrote. For that reason, if you want to defend the idea that he had access to another gospel, you’ll have to explain why (if he had the others and was just filling in stories or details that the others missed) he repeated some stories/items that ARE in the others.
Scholarly opinion is split on whether he had access to any of the synoptics, mainly Mark, or any noncanonical gospels. It would be an interesting activity, if you are interested in actually studying the Bible instead of just finding ways to get your chosen doctrine from it, to list the stories/parables/incidents in each of the synoptics and compare them pairwise and in groups to 4g - plus you may want to include the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Phillip, Mary, or others in that to see if a pattern shows up. Based on that, you may be able to offer a coherent idea as to why some where copied again and others were added. In fact, there are so many possibilities that I’m sure you could come up with something, and it could be an interesting discussion. However, simply stating that the author of 4g doesn’t have to say everything the others said and then ignoring the information available in that author’s choice of stories shows a lack of interest in actually studying the Bible itself, as opposed to finding ways to reinforce what one has been told and already believes. Plus, just like the contradictions, it’s off topic on this thread.
Why does it not occur to some people that John could have purposely emphasized aspects of his impressions of life with Jesus that other gospel writers did not emphasize?
It has occurred to me and many others throughout history. The key is, like any other area of knowledge, testing if this idea makes sense by using it to make predictions and then testing if they are confirmed.
in the beginning
I looked at most of those verses, and are some common points, and I agree that 4g was written later, when the many different Christianities had begun to come into conflict. 4g contains a much more Gnostic understanding of Jesus, and it’s unsurprising that it was used by many Gnostic Christian churches. However, I have to say that the commentary you quoted seems to be reaching to come to the conclusion that these references all mean that the author was using them to say to go back to what he says Jesus taught. At a bare minimum, I’d like to see an analysis of how often "an earlier time" is referenced in each of the 4 canonical gospels as a percentage of the gospel length, to see if 4g even stands out. Otherwise, it’s just cute speculation, not the testing of idea to see if they hold up.
God entrusted to this disciple the final word in a number of matters related to His divine revelation. I agree that there were a lot of Johns as there were a lot of Marys. I don't think there were a lot of Johns who had that much apostolic authority to write the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John.
Being that we don’t know if the writer of 4g was an apostle, or even was named John, I wonder how you are deciding this author has apostolic authority. Are you just assuming that someone has apostolic authority if a lot of early Christians say he does? That’s also true of Valentinus.
There may have been many Johns. I think that the John the son of Zebedee was atypical in stature and spiritual maturity. And God chose this one to write the last gospel and the last of the epistles in the New Testament. I also believe that God used this one to write the last book of the New Testament and indeed the final word of the entire Bible.
OK, that’s OK to think that, but what evidence or reason do you have to support each of those statements, other than what you’ve been told to think? I used to think all that too, until I looked into it. It’s fine if that is your faith position - it’s just that faith positions can’t be used in discussion, they are your private faith. Discussion is based on evidences that are available to all.
I don't know what great significance you attached to the absence of some particular saying. You say this says a lot. I don't know what great significance you think this means. And I'm not sure what you claim is missing is really missing.
Allow me to try again. The 4g is written to convince people about Jesus and Christianity. Anyone trying to convince people of Jesus miracles or anything else in 4g would be more convincing if that person said “look, I saw this with my own eyes, and I’m one of Jesus’s 12 disciples here speaking to you.” 4g says neither of these, anywhere - in fact, it explicitly says in 20 that it is based on someone else’s testimony.
Is it more speculative than attaching great significance to the possibility that maybe chapter 21 was a latter addition?
(in referring to the middle of post #6, which argues that because the writer of 4g is humble, he’s actually John the disciple, since he never gives his name in the gospel).
Yes, I think it is more speculative. All we have linking 4g to John is Catholic tradition, which you are quite happy to ignore on many other points (you’ve mentioned this, but I’m still unclear as to why catholic tradition is ignored in some cases and not others, even when all of them have little or no other evidence). I listed some of the reasons why it appears that 21 is a later addition, including content, emphasis, the apparent ending in 20, and the fact that Tertullian (in the late 2nd century) states that the 4g ends with 20 (see note about numbers there) - btw, we have no manuscripts of 4g from prior to the third century that contain 21.
It is a possibility (I’m not assuming a go it alone mentality, I know that dictation happened often in the ancient world). But it is also a possibility that the Gospel was written by an educated, Greek-native Christian well after the disciple was dead.
Does that require that I believe that there are lies written in the Gospel of John? Does that require that I believe there were misrepresentations designed to deceive and present a case which was not true? If so I have to reject that idea as unrealistic
It does nothing like that - the author of 4g could well have written it honestly, since he doesn’t claim to be John, doesn’t claim to be a disciple (of the 12), nor does it appear he was anything but an honest and motivated Christian. It only requires that you be able to think that the Catholic church could have been wrong in a later, post apostolic idea - which you’ve already stated you think is possible (and has happened).
But more importantly - saying that you categorically won’t believe anything that shows that there is error or deception in a chosen book is a sure way to shut off any logical thought, and shows why fundamentalism is both wrong and harmful - whether that be Christian, Islamic, Wahabi, or Zionist fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons why inerrancy and fundamentalism close minds, generate hatred, foster conflict, and eventually hurt both their religion and any others nearby. There are plenty of well established cases of error and forgery in the Bible (just as in the Qu’ran), such as the pastorals and elsewhere. Like other points of discussion, that deserves a whole thread, which we can get into if you like.
Religious people can lie and cheat. However, I think God used pure vessels to lay the foundations of the Christian church.
And why do you think that? I mean, if you think that based on evidence, then we can discuss the evidence and you should have no problem doing so. If you think that because it is a faith position, then that’s OK, just don’t expect others to accept something just because you have it as a faith position - faith positions purchase their safety from inquiry at the expense of having any connection to the real world.
I suppose you mean "non - one of the original twelve disciples". After the twelve disciples there were many other disciples you know?
Sure, but for clarification, yes, I mean the original 12 - otherwise the term has little meaning. Even today, there are 12 disciples of the Latter Day church, and plenty of other disciples running around.
Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, also wrote the book of Acts. He was neither anonymous nor a non-disciple Christian.
Disciple - see above.
He was indeed anonymous - he never, not in the gospel nor in Acts, ever says who he is. It’s undisputed that the same person wrote both (we could get into the evidence for thinking this, but since we agree on that point, I don’t see a need to). However, it’s not clear at all who that person was. As with John, we have only Catholic tradition to say that he’s luke, a name which was picked only because “luke” is one of the names that Paul mentions as being with him at some point. I hope we can agree that 3g and acts are anonymous in and of themselves - since they never say who is doing the writing.
John disclosed the Trinity symbolically in both his gospel and the Revelation.
Both of those are worthy of whole new threads - the idea that the trinity is in the Bible at all (it seems to be so lacking in the idea of the trinity that later Christians decided they needed to write it in themselves, that’s why it’s in the KJV and not in most modern Bibles), and the other idea is that whoever wrote 4g also wrote rev - which seems very unlikely based on a number of reasons. They are off topic here.
We also might want to discuss the evidence for later changes and additions to the Bible after the books were initially written. There is a lot of evidence of this - that stories, epistles, etc, were routinely changed if the copyist didn’t like what they said, or by pure accident.
However, to stick to the topic - maybe we should agree that we can’t tell if the author of 4g also wrote 1John, and then open another thread to discuss who the author of 4g was, since the discussion has moved on to that?
At any rate, take care-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 07-19-2007 6:12 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jaywill, posted 07-19-2007 10:13 PM Equinox has not replied
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2007 8:05 AM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 14 of 39 (411292)
07-19-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Equinox
07-19-2007 3:20 PM


Re: Yochanan... 1, 2, 3....4?
Anyone trying to convince people of Jesus miracles or anything else in 4g would be more convincing if that person said “look, I saw this with my own eyes, and I’m one of Jesus’s 12 disciples here speaking to you.” 4g says neither of these, anywhere - in fact, it explicitly says in 20 that it is based on someone else’s testimony.
As I said, I don't see missing what you say is missing. You have an opinion that the writer is refering to someone else. I disagree. Here is the passage that comes about as close to what you're looking for as possible:
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that what he says is true, that you also may believe. (John 19:35)
1.) This passage is in chapter 19 before your alleged problematic
21rst chapter. (Unless I misunderstood you on which chapter you feel presents some textural problems).
2.) My opinion is that "he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that what he says is true" indicates the writer writing about himself.
You may disagree. Maybe neither view can be absolutely proved for certainty.
But if the writer was singling out some particular important "he" who has seen and testified to these things, I don't see why he wouldn't have NAMED the person. Many others were named specifically in the Gospel of John. My bet is that the testifying and trustworthy "he" in the passage is the writer himself.
3.) Now to the reason for the passage. You spoke of the Gospel of John showing a Gnostic flavor. Actually, it is a polemic apologetic against the Gnostic attacks against the Gospel.
The writer is emphasizing that he personally saw blood and water come out of the body of the Lord Jesus. The Gnostics believed many things and had many schools of beliefs. But one important belief they held was -
"that our bodies and all of the material world was evil or illusory."
[A History of Christian Theology an introduction - William C. Placher, Westminister Press, pg 47]
The deliberate bearing witness to the "blood and water" coming from the body of Jesus on the cross was the seal that Jesus was not a phantasm. He had an actual physical body. The Gnostics probably held the idea the Jesus was too good to be material. The writer, John, to my understanding, says in essence 'Look. He was not a phantasm. He was a material man of flesh and blood. I testify that I saw blood and water gushing out of his slain body.
The Gospel of John is a polemic against Gnosticism as is the First Epistle of John. Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, is a death blow to the Gnostic influence on the Gospel. Rather than the Logos of God being degraded by being wrongfully entrapped in material flesh, He came purposely in the flesh. And He was handled by human hands (First John 1:1) and touched both before His resurrection (Mark 3:10; 5:31) and after His resurrection (John 20:17,27).
Other portions of your last post I will leave until latter.
But, I am honored that you recognize that I am trying to derive my particular pet doctrine from John's writings. This is because what I am impressed with in John's writing apparently is what he also was impressed with. If the dispensing of divine life into man is my pet doctrine from the Gospel it is also the writer's pet doctrine.
I'm sorry that you overlook the major themes of this writing.
"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4)
"I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10)
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills" (John 5:21)
"You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that testify concerning Me. Yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." (John 5:39,40)
"For the bread of God is He who comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world" (John 5:33).
"I am the bread of life" (John 6:48).
"I am the living bread which came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever" (John 6:51)
"Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25).
"Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life" (John 14:6)
"Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live you also shall live" (John 14:19).
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3)
"But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name" (John 20:31)
So I feel honored that my "pet doctrine" in the Gospel of John is the repeated stress of Jesus Himself and His Apostle.
God was in Christ to accomplish redemption and dispense the divine and eternal life of God into man. And the closing scenes of the Revelation graphically portray this "pet" theme in the water of life proceeding out of the Trinity into the city of God.
My discussion or debate with you is only a vehicle. My real purpose here is to enjoy the life of God embodied in the Bible. If talking about which John of any wrote these things helps me to get life from the New Testament, I'm all for it.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Equinox, posted 07-19-2007 3:20 PM Equinox has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 15 of 39 (411297)
07-19-2007 10:43 PM


Anyone trying to convince people of Jesus miracles or anything else in 4g would be more convincing if that person said “look, I saw this with my own eyes, and I’m one of Jesus’s 12 disciples here speaking to you.” 4g says neither of these, anywhere - in fact, it explicitly says in 20 that it is based on someone else’s testimony.
One of the things which early impressed me when I first read the four Gospels was their "matter of fact" tone.
The writers do not beg you to believe. In a concise and economical way they state that this or that happened. I think that it is the Holy Spirit working on people's hearts that grants them the ability to accept the Bible.
There is no coercing or begging or gushing over with pleadings that you simply must believe what is being testified to. For the most part you get it or you do not. You believe it or you reject it.
In my case, after some repeated readings, I came to believe more and more. Your ideas about what would have been more effective to "get people to believe" may just be so many worldly methods.
Paul wrote of the apostles:
"But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God." (2 Cor. 4:2)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024