You're right, I shouldn't be so abrupt. I have studied the provenance of the Gospel of John with intensity for 45 years, and some of my early findings I never found any reason to question. One is that the second disciple is simply Phillip.
Hello Korah,
I, personally, am not sure if you're over thinking this or under thinking it. I have seen people do both but it takes time and a lot of correspondance to know for sure.
In John 1:43 the Greek word is "euriskei",
How many times is this verb found (euriskei
) in these verses?
Let's examine them. First let's remember that Jesus has taken the two disciples of John the Baptist and told them to come with him.
1:39
He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
1:41
He
found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have
found the Messiah" . (Different tenses of the verb)
In the above, the first thing that Andrew does is find Peter and tell him. Now let's also remember that this occurred in Bethany, v. 28, which was not far from the Dead Sea.
1:43
The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He
found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me."
In this one, why does Jesus and the others travel from Bethany to Galilee and then have Jesus finding Philip and again telling him to follow him. These verses have been about Jesus' first disciples. This makes no sense if Philip was already a follower.
1:45
Philip
found Nathanael and said to him, "We have
found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote --Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph ." (Again, different tenses)
They have come to Bethsaida and find Philip and Philip then finds Nathanael who is from the same town.
In the verses from 35 to 51, we see Jesus gathering the first of his disciples. The 2 from John (Andrew and an unnamed), Simon. Philip, and Nathanael. A total of 5 disciples.
You theory does not hold water when the context is examined.
Jesus did not just meet Phillip (as most translations wrongly say), but He found Phillip,
When I checked most of the translations that I have use of, including older Bibles, they all say found or findeth. So they are correct.
was already looking for someone He knew from personal experience.
He very well could have known Philip. They were both from Galilee but didn't live that close together, so it is doubtful. Philip appears to have known Nathanael well but he has no idea who Jesus is. Andrew and Simon also had no idea of who Jesus was before he was revealed.
(The author seems to have no preconception that Jesus routinely used His powers of omniscience, His Incarnation seemed to include usually seeing and remembering as we all do.)
Do what? Thjis makes no sense , since this Book was written well after the life of Jesus. What do you think the writers reason for writing it was?
He starts the book out by telling us that Jesus was eternal. It is also the most spiritual of the Gospels.
Note also that Andrew and Phillip remain paired as joint disciples regularly throughout John.
In the first chapter, Philip is mentioned with Nathanael and only two other times in John, 6:8 and 12:22. How you can get that they are "joint disciples" out of these shows that you read into things that are not there.
(As we know from the Synoptics, Jesus sent His apostles around Palestine on missions, but always with his buddy.)
Don't just make statement and provide no proof. Cite each of the verses to prove your point.
The rest of my findings that you so dislike take a lot of explanation no one hear would want to deal with. In 1979 I wrote a book called John in Reverse, but quickly gave up trying to publish it after some initial hostile reactions from scholars who weren't even willing to consider listening.
Are we to assume that they had never investigated your claims? I doubt that. They most likely had explored all of the theories. That's what makes them scholars.
I did write a long article that I did get published (privately), "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John". I doubt you would even consider either worth your study.
If I had seen some credible information to back up what you say, then I would be interested. But, all of your arguements seem to be very weak.
You claim that most scholars placidly accept that John wrote John.
Where did I say placidly?
What century are you living in?
Hopefully, you are living in the same time period that I am.
Between 1796 and 1835 the scholarly opinion turned wholly against the Gospel of John, with dates of composition in the last half of the Second Century, a century after the last Apostle died.
I am not living in the 18th or 19th century. That is in the past and as you point out in the next paragraph, scholars don't accept what Evanson and Bretschneider said. There is a greater understanding in the use of ancient Greek today, as compared with those times.
Apparently for you, "credible authorities" mean very conservative Christians, probably in your own denomination. To me, both the very conservative and the very radical are not credible.
No, I don't care what faith they have, just scholars who are not trying to add their own theology and base their findings on weak or entirely made up data. Give me a scholar whose only propose is historical in motive.
Edited to add: Well, as most Roman Catholic top scholars do not hold that John the Apostle himself wrote John (at most they'll admit to a Johannine School), I take it your authorities are arch-conservatives among your denomination like one hears on EWTN, Ave Maria, or Catholic Answers. But these men are not scholars specializing on the authorship of the gospels. You'll find many of your guys touting Matthew as the first gospel written, even though it's quite obviously not.
I personally don't watch EWTN but I do believe that the Vatican has many many very good scholars.
I have not heard a single Catholic scholar say that John is not the writer of John and again, if you have proof give that proof. All you have done is make statements of your own theories and provide nothing to back it up.
God Bless,
Yarddog