John wrote John in his lifetime

[ananda]

It means that whatever you say is just your opinion and therefore you cannot recognise the supremacy of one claim over another.

How do you propose that I (or anyone, really) can recognize the supremacy of one claim over another claim without knowing the truth of the allegations supporting the competing claims for myself?

 

[mindlight]

How do you propose that I (or anyone, really) can recognize the supremacy of one claim over another claim without knowing the truth of the allegations supporting the competing claims for myself?

The first step is to recognise the possibility of one person communicating truth to another and of shared language. You have individualised the consciousness of what is true to your own bubble of experience. So if what I say contradicts your own terms of reference it should not automatically be screened out or translated into your own private language. Learning to recognise the necessary disturbance of truth, learning to hold that disturbance in tension with our own consciouness until it is authentically resolved is the key here.

Second step is to recognise that disputes between persons( between different bubbles of consciousness) can be resolved by third party persons and tools. So experimental science can provide us with facts, historical reflection can generate different levels of certainty over different claims, mathematical and logical contradictions can be exposed, different theological revelations can be analysed and their credibility assessed, different witnesses can be graded in terms of honesty and trustworthiness.

 

[ananda]

The first step is to recognise the possibility of one person communicating truth to another and of shared language. You have individualised the consciousness of what is true to your own bubble of experience. So if what I say contradicts your own terms of reference it should not automatically be screened out or translated into your own private language. Learning to recognise the necessary disturbance of truth, learning to hold that disturbance in tension with our own consciouness until it is authentically resolved is the key here.

I don't disagree - I am generally agnostic about any subject until I can know for myself that it is true. Therefore, I must still "know the truth of the allegations supporting the competing claims for myself".

Second step is to recognise that disputes between persons( between different bubbles of consciousness) can be resolved by third party persons and tools. So experimental science can provide us with facts, historical reflection can generate different levels of certainty over different claims, mathematical and logical contradictions can be exposed, different theological revelations can be analysed and their credibility assessed, different witnesses can be graded in terms of honesty and trustworthiness.

Yes, and these different sources must also be validated by myself. If I judge that the mass of sources supporting one claim is more trustworthy of convincing than the mass of sources supporting another claim, then I will naturally lean that way because that is what I know for myself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Basically the theme of this thread is to do with who wrote Johns gospel and when.

The traditional view is that John the Evangelist (the Disciple whom Jesus loved) wrote this around 85 AD as the only surviving apostle by that time. But more recently people have suggested an earlier date between 50-70AD (so before the fall of Jerusalem).

A number of liberal scholars have congregated around various alternative views:

1) John the Elder wrote it later

2) Lazarus

3) Some kind of Johannine school composed it much later drawing from earlier sources as well as redacting the material.

Who and when?

https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-john

EDIT: Removed word modern from phrase liberal scholars. As the most uptodate research tends towards affirming John as author rather than disputing that.

Origen, an early Christian, did a line by line commentary on John but did not include the portion with the adulterous woman. There is in fact no mention of that for centuries.

Also, the epilogue contains a writing style that is alien to the whole book. It makes use of a lot of words that appear nowhere else in the text.

Could the bulk of the book still have been John? There is no original Hebrew manuscript of John or any New Testament work. John, as the story goes, was a fisherman who was probably illiterate, and certainty wasn't literate in a second language like Greek. (I'd argue that John and Peter were hellenistic Jewish scholars, but I doubt you would give that consideration.) It would be strange to suggest that John dictated in Hebrew and that it was written down directly into Greek.

 

[mindlight]

Origen, an early Christian, did a line by line commentary on John but did not include the portion with the adulterous woman. There is in fact no mention of that for centuries.

Yes there is a real controversy there. Which is a shame as I cannot think of a better passage to demonstrate forgiveness and the futility of judgmentalism. I am undecided if it should be included.

Also, the epilogue contains a writing style that is alien to the whole book. It makes use of a lot of words that appear nowhere else in the text.

Could the bulk of the book still have been John? There is no original Hebrew manuscript of John or any New Testament work. John, as the story goes, was a fisherman who was probably illiterate, and certainty wasn't literate in a second language like Greek. (I'd argue that John and Peter were hellenistic Jewish scholars, but I doubt you would give that consideration.) It would be strange to suggest that John dictated in Hebrew and that it was written down directly into Greek.

People can learn new skills later in life. As someone who moved to another country where I had to learn the native language late in life I know that is possible. People friendly types like John probably pick up languages easier than me and especially when he probably had a smattering of Greek before he moved to the predominantly Greek speaking area he spent most of the 52 years before writing the gospel ( traditional date 85AD). As the gentile parts of the church grew I imagine his Hebrew was less and less used in practice in favour of Greek. It is also possible that his own efforts at writing the gospel were then edited with his approval and oversight by a more adept Greek scholar. None of this would contradict his authorship.

There is no reason why considerations of style should be allowed to overrule the basic Johannine content.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes there is a real controversy there. Which is a shame as I cannot think of a better passage to demonstrate forgiveness and the futility of judgmentalism. I am undecided if it should be included.



People can learn new skills later in life. As someone who moved to another country where I had to learn the native language late in life I know that is possible. People friendly types like John probably pick up languages easier than me and especially when he probably had a smattering of Greek before he moved to the predominantly Greek speaking area he spent most of the 52 years before writing the gospel ( traditional date 85AD). As the gentile parts of the church grew I imagine his Hebrew was less and less used in practice in favour of Greek. It is also possible that his own efforts at writing the gospel were then edited with his approval and oversight by a more adept Greek scholar. None of this would contradict his authorship.

There is no reason why considerations of style should be allowed to overrule the basic Johannine content.

Aside from the title, where is the explicit claim made that John wrote the gospel named after him? What do we know about the title, and do the earliest manuscripts have the title? Lastly, why is it written in the third person omniscient? If John is reporting things as an eyewitness, why does he include events which he did not witness?

 

[mindlight]

Aside from the title, where is the explicit claim made that John wrote the gospel named after him? What do we know about the title, and do the earliest manuscripts have the title? Lastly, why is it written in the third person omniscient? If John is reporting things as an eyewitness, why does he include events which he did not witness?

The internal evidence e.g John 21 is pretty clear that it was John.

The addition of this passage today, when it was not present in the earliest manuscripts means we have good reason to believe it was in the original. Actually since the bulk of the gospel is not controversial this illustrates that it was broadly kept in tact as given. Basically manuscripts in different places and traditions are mainly in agreement.

The third person style has already been discussed extensively elsewhere. It was written in the style of honest testimony according to the way of the time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The internal evidence e.g John 21 is pretty clear that it was John.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you are referring to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" recurring theme then I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots. Furthermore, John 21 is the epilogue which, as I stated already, is widely believed to be a composite work.

The addition of this passage today, when it was not present in the earliest manuscripts means we have good reason to believe it was in the original.

I've read this several times and it still makes no sense at all. You're telling me that a passage not being in the earliest manuscripts indicates that it was in the original.

Actually since the bulk of the gospel is not controversial this illustrates that it was broadly kept in tact as given. Basically manuscripts in different places and traditions are mainly in agreement.

I don't know what this has to do with authorship.

The third person style has already been discussed extensively elsewhere. It was written in the style of honest testimony according to the way of the time.

I hear this a lot, but I've never had a Christian give me even a single example. A single example would be a good start, but it would take several examples to establish a trend.

Josephus was a Jew who defected to the Romans and became a Roman historian. He wrote history books in the first person. Of course, many portions of what he wrote were in the third person by necessity if he's narrating something that happened when he wasn't there. But when applicable, he wrote in the first person. That is, this is true if the translations of his works into English I've found on Wikipedia are to be trusted.

For example:

Josephus' reference to John the Baptist

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.[33]


So, thanks for the reply but really you've said next to nothing here. Also I didn't see you address the question on the titling of the gospel.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you are referring to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" recurring theme then I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots. Furthermore, John 21 is the epilogue which, as I stated already, is widely believed to be a composite work.

I hear this a lot, but I've never had a Christian give me even a single example. A single example would be a good start, but it would take several examples to establish a trend.

The evidence supports the view that John 21 like the prologue is an integral part of the original gospel.

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/12/john-21-later-addition-or-epilogue.html?m=1

Much of the above was addressed in a previous post.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-wrote-john-in-his-lifetime.8069790/#post-72843877

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The evidence supports the view that John 21 like the prologue is an integral part of the original gospel.

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/12/john-21-later-addition-or-epilogue.html?m=1

Much of the above was addressed in a previous post.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-wrote-john-in-his-lifetime.8069790/#post-72843877

You redacted much of what I said and ignored my points. You didn't address a single one of my objections. What was the point of this thread? Are you posting a PSA in a debate forum?

 

[mindlight]

You redacted much of what I said and ignored my points. You didn't address a single one of my objections. What was the point of this thread? Are you posting a PSA in a debate forum?

no I only had time to respond to the bits I did cause busy right now and slow on mobile. but i did answer your efforts to refute Johannine authorship from previous post and link. You have failed to engage with the previous postings thus far

 

[mindlight]

The internal evidence e.g John 21 is pretty clear that it was John.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you are referring to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" recurring theme then I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots.

Then engage with this post:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-wrote-john-in-his-lifetime.8069790/#post-72843877

Furthermore, John 21 is the epilogue which, as I stated already, is widely believed to be a composite work.

There are good reasons to doubt that theory:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/12/john-21-later-addition-or-epilogue.html?m=1

The addition of this passage today, when it was not present in the earliest manuscripts means we have good reason to believe it was in the original.

I've read this several times and it still makes no sense at all. You're telling me that a passage not being in the earliest manuscripts indicates that it was in the original.

No it means that there were other reasons why inclusion was considered valid later on. For example if other independent geographic centres consistently included it and all the rest of the text then its ommission in the earliest manuscript fragments we have would seem like a mistake in these rather than in the later manuscripts. Theologically the content is pretty uncontroversial and a useful addition.

Actually since the bulk of the gospel is not controversial this illustrates that it was broadly kept in tact as given. Basically manuscripts in different places and traditions are mainly in agreement.

I don't know what this has to do with authorship.

It shows that the audit trail between author and present day manuscript is broadly in tact.

The third person style has already been discussed extensively elsewhere. It was written in the style of honest testimony according to the way of the time.

I hear this a lot, but I've never had a Christian give me even a single example. A single example would be a good start, but it would take several examples to establish a trend.

There are a great many examples in Jewish literature which is more pertinent to this discussion and in the OT for example. But John adopts this style quite consistently so that Jesus is glorified and not Himself. It is the testimony of an honest man as opposed to that of a fool. The below article discusses the use of the third person and puts it in its wider literary context

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0asnBhrAtmD7-BKuFX_Y9F

Josephus was a Jew who defected to the Romans and became a Roman historian. He wrote history books in the first person. Of course, many portions of what he wrote were in the third person by necessity if he's narrating something that happened when he wasn't there. But when applicable, he wrote in the first person. That is, this is true if the translations of his works into English I've found on Wikipedia are to be trusted.

For example:

Josephus' reference to John the Baptist

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.[33]

Josephus is not a perfect witness though he is a useful resource and a man with such flexible loyalties was by definition a survivor who somehow had to justify his continuing existence to his new Roman masters and sponsors. This is one mans writings as opposed to the collective voice of a community or a testimony about a superiors life and teaching as with Johns gospel on Jesus. A better comparison would be when Josephus refers to one on whose patronage he depends or a Rabinnic literary commentary on a highly regarded sage.

So, thanks for the reply but really you've said next to nothing here. Also I didn't see you address the question on the titling of the gospel.

1) No MSS which contains this gospel names any other author except John
2) Early examples(P66 and P75) testify to Johannine authorship
3) There is early church father attestation from Eusebius/Irenaeus/Polycarp, the other church fathers and Muratorian canon all seem to affirm this also.

The internal and incidental evidence is pretty much overwhelming and can be found here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline

 

[Nihilist Virus]

no I only had time to respond to the bits I did cause busy right now and slow on mobile. but i did answer your efforts to refute Johannine authorship from previous post and link. You have failed to engage with the previous postings thus far

You still left something unaddressed:

Aside from the title, where is the explicit claim made that John wrote the gospel named after him? What do we know about the title, and do the earliest manuscripts have the title? Lastly, why is it written in the third person omniscient? If John is reporting things as an eyewitness, why does he include events which he did not witness?

You partially addressed the question about third-person narration by saying that this is how honest men testified back in the day. Also, you addressed the title later in the post. However, you fail to explain how John was aware of events that he wasn't present for.

I also asked,

I've read this several times and it still makes no sense at all. You're telling me that a passage not being in the earliest manuscripts indicates that it was in the original.

I don't know what this has to do with authorship.

And these things you did address, so thank you for that.

I continue,

I hear this a lot, but I've never had a Christian give me even a single example. A single example would be a good start, but it would take several examples to establish a trend.

You responded to this with a dead link. Presumably the ellipsis that appears in your link was inserted by the forum, and then a large portion of the link was redacted. Until you fix that, this is unaddressed.

You did reply to my citation of Josephus, so we can get to that when everything else is addressed. You also addressed the issue of the title, as I already mentioned, so we can get to that later also.

So assuming you can fix the dead link, you still must account for both why and how John recorded events when he wasn't present to witness them. After that, we can address your responses.

 

[mindlight]

You still left something unaddressed:

Aside from the title, where is the explicit claim made that John wrote the gospel named after him? What do we know about the title, and do the earliest manuscripts have the title? Lastly, why is it written in the third person omniscient? If John is reporting things as an eyewitness, why does he include events which he did not witness?

You partially addressed the question about third-person narration by saying that this is how honest men testified back in the day. Also, you addressed the title later in the post. However, you fail to explain how John was aware of events that he wasn't present for.

I also asked,

I've read this several times and it still makes no sense at all. You're telling me that a passage not being in the earliest manuscripts indicates that it was in the original.

I don't know what this has to do with authorship.

And these things you did address, so thank you for that.

I continue,

I hear this a lot, but I've never had a Christian give me even a single example. A single example would be a good start, but it would take several examples to establish a trend.

You responded to this with a dead link. Presumably the ellipsis that appears in your link was inserted by the forum, and then a large portion of the link was redacted. Until you fix that, this is unaddressed.

You did reply to my citation of Josephus, so we can get to that when everything else is addressed. You also addressed the issue of the title, as I already mentioned, so we can get to that later also.

So assuming you can fix the dead link, you still must account for both why and how John recorded events when he wasn't present to witness them. After that, we can address your responses.

Fixed the dead link.

John could comment on things he did not directly see which could have been explained to Him directly by Jesus or by those who did directly witness them. He was the leader of a church where people communicated not a solitary man in a cave recording his own personal memories.

A specific example would help focus that question.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Fixed the dead link.

Thanks. I'll browse it later.

John could comment on things he did not directly see which could have been explained to Him directly by Jesus or by those who did directly witness them.

Yes. He could have. But didn't. Why?

He was the leader of a church

Source?

where people communicated not a solitary man in a cave recording his own personal memories.

Relevance?

A specific example would help focus that question.

How did John know about the conversation between Jesus and the rich young ruler? Why would the rich young ruler share the experience if he was dissatisfied with it? Why would Jesus share the experience if every Christian I've ever met says that the conversation does not apply to them?

Edit: if that's not in John, is that too off topic?

 

[mindlight]

Thanks. I'll browse it later.



Yes. He could have. But didn't. Why?



Source?



Relevance?



How did John know about the conversation between Jesus and the rich young ruler? Why would the rich young ruler share the experience if he was dissatisfied with it? Why would Jesus share the experience if every Christian I've ever met says that the conversation does not apply to them?

Edit: if that's not in John, is that too off topic?

Thanks. I'll browse it later.



Yes. He could have. But didn't. Why?



Source?



Relevance?



How did John know about the conversation between Jesus and the rich young ruler? Why would the rich young ruler share the experience if he was dissatisfied with it? Why would Jesus share the experience if every Christian I've ever met says that the conversation does not apply to them?

Edit: if that's not in John, is that too off topic?

The rich young ruler passage is only in the Synoptics. John did not need to repeat the incident.

You are not really engaging with any of my posts and are dodging the points I make.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The rich young ruler passage is only in the Synoptics. John did not need to repeat the incident.

You are not really engaging with any of my posts and are dodging the points I make.

I acknowledged that and asked if it's too far off topic. A simple yes would suffice, but you'd rather go on the offensive. Go get your own examples of John narrating in the omniscient third person and explain them. Or don't. I don't really care.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Basically the theme of this thread is to do with who wrote Johns gospel and when.

The traditional view is that John the Evangelist (the Disciple whom Jesus loved) wrote this around 85 AD as the only surviving apostle by that time. But more recently people have suggested an earlier date between 50-70AD (so before the fall of Jerusalem).

A number of liberal scholars have congregated around various alternative views:

1) John the Elder wrote it later

2) Lazarus

3) Some kind of Johannine school composed it much later drawing from earlier sources as well as redacting the material.

Who and when?

https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-john

EDIT: Removed word modern from phrase liberal scholars. As the most uptodate research tends towards affirming John as author rather than disputing that.

On the whole I think John the Evangelist, though with additions via the Johannine school (primarily the last chapter).

It is possible to argue that the Johannine school wrote the whole thing, but their source was John, so it seems to make little difference in the long run.

Lazarus is wishful thinking, while John the Elder is more plausible. However the earliest traditions attribute it to JtE, so that is the most likely author.

 

[cvanwey]

Basically the theme of this thread is to do with who wrote Johns gospel and when.

The traditional view is that John the Evangelist (the Disciple whom Jesus loved) wrote this around 85 AD as the only surviving apostle by that time. But more recently people have suggested an earlier date between 50-70AD (so before the fall of Jerusalem).

A number of liberal scholars have congregated around various alternative views:

1) John the Elder wrote it later

2) Lazarus

3) Some kind of Johannine school composed it much later drawing from earlier sources as well as redacting the material.

Who and when?

https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-john

EDIT: Removed word modern from phrase liberal scholars. As the most uptodate research tends towards affirming John as author rather than disputing that.

If you received a firm answer, which satisfied you to a concrete conclusion regarding 'who and when', would it actually change your belief structure in 'John' in any viable and possible way? Just curious?

 

[mindlight]

If you received a firm answer, which satisfied you to a concrete conclusion regarding 'who and when', would it actually change your belief structure in 'John' in any viable and possible way? Just curious?

The most concrete answers here have affirmed the traditional view that John wrote John.

Many Scholars have drifted so far from scripture and from tradition that they think their own new manmade traditions sound authoritative when actually these have no credibility at all.

That John wrote John is actually completely obvious and is in effect a test of honesty.