Who really wrote John's Gospel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Klm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Code: 
             **By**

             **Dennis Barton**

             **
        The Gospels are Historical
**Part 1

FOREWORD
Code: 
            The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written             dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious **and widespread **doubts about the             historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.

             'The Authors of the Gospels' sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written             by the earliest Christian historians (**The** Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time             of Jerome.

             This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written             by eyewitness companions of Jesus.** The author             points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican             Council.**
more…

**
**
 
40.png
Gnosis:
The Gospel of John was likely composed around 100 CE. Jesus died around 30 CE. In these times, especially for peasants, the lifespan was considerably short. **Lets say that John was 16 years old when he became a disciple of Christ. By the time this gospel was written he would have been between, say, 70 and 86 years old. It is unlikely he would have lived that long. **
.
Click to expand...
Actually, lots of people back then lived that long. The trick was surviving childhood. Anyone strong enough to grow up, had a good chance of living well into old age.
The question of “average life expectancy” in history gives us a skewed perspective, until we remember that it is figured including the appalling number of babies who died in infancy.
 
An interesting article . . . but the author does not come close to proving his premise. Moreover, the conclusions he derives from a faulty understanding of Markan priority frankly do not stand up.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Gnosis:
There are several reasons why the Gospel of John was not likely written by an apostle. One, we know the apostles would have been uneducated, for the magnificent piece of literature that the Gospel of John is, it is extremely unlikely that it could have been written by a Palestinian peasant.

Secondly, the Gospel has clear indications that it was written by an educated, scholarly Greek believer who had some resentment issues with the Jews. Notice that John refers to them constantly as “the Jews” distinguishing Jesus and his apostles from them as though they were not Jewish.

Thirdly, the Gospel of John dates as the final gospel. John is not a synoptic gospel and presents some very striking statements that are mysteriously missing within the Matthew, Luke and Mark, especially when considering their significance to Christian theology. At times it even contradicts the synoptics (for example Jesus’ execution is incited by the resurection of Lazarus as opposed to causing havoc in the Temple)

The Gospel of John was likely composed around 100 CE. Jesus died around 30 CE. In these times, especially for peasants, the lifespan was considerably short. Lets say that John was 16 years old when he became a disciple of Christ. By the time this gospel was written he would have been between, say, 70 and 86 years old. It is unlikely he would have lived that long.

When analyzing this from a historical perspective, it is extremely unlikely that Johannine authorship was of apostolic origin. However, from a faith perspective (ie. God gave the disciples enhanced literary skills and extended life) then it is not out of the question.
Click to expand...
From the Authors of the Gospels:

e). In John 5: 2, we see John referring to Jerusalem in the present tense. Critics may try to explain this away, but they have no evidence that it should not be understood as it is written. This indicates that the first part of John`s Gospel was written prior to 70 AD.

g). From our findings above, especially those in e) and f), we are able to date the writing of the main section (i.e. without the final chapter) of the Gospel according to John as between 65-70 AD.

As stated in the 1953 edition of The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, it was presumed that the earlier chapters were written just a few years prior to this date. ((CCHS 781j)). But in more recent times scholars such as Tresmontant ((CTH 324)), Thied ((CTR xii)), Orchard ((BOO 18)) and Robinson ((JATR 311)) approaching this question from very different directions have concluded that this presumption was an error. They hold that at least the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70 AD.
 
40.png
buffalo:
From the Authors of the Gospels:

e). In John 5: 2, we see John referring to Jerusalem in the present tense. Critics may try to explain this away, but they have no evidence that it should not be understood as it is written. This indicates that the first part of John`s Gospel was written prior to 70 AD.

g). From our findings above, especially those in e) and f), we are able to date the writing of the main section (i.e. without the final chapter) of the Gospel according to John as between 65-70 AD.

As stated in the 1953 edition of The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, it was presumed that the earlier chapters were written just a few years prior to this date. ((CCHS 781j)). But in more recent times scholars such as Tresmontant ((CTH 324)), Thied ((CTR xii)), Orchard ((BOO 18)) and Robinson ((JATR 311)) approaching this question from very different directions have concluded that this presumption was an error. They hold that at least the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70 AD.
Click to expand...
With respect, who is the author of the article in question?

Incidentally, citing JAT Robinson – a kooky, if not outright heterodox (at best) Anglican bishop does not bolster your case.

I am familiar with the arguments for the early dating of the Johannine corpus, and find them wanting at best.

BTW, I have no difficulty with an early dating of the Synoptic material – indeed, I find it quite likely. But not John’s stuff.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
With respect, who is the author of the article in question?

Incidentally, citing JAT Robinson – a kooky, if not outright heterodox (at best) Anglican bishop does not bolster your case.

I am familiar with the arguments for the early dating of the Johannine corpus, and find them wanting at best.

BTW, I have no difficulty with an early dating of the Synoptic material – indeed, I find it quite likely. But not John’s stuff.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
Read the whole tract. I have only picked a few paragraphs because the mods will send me an email.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Read the whole tract. I have only picked a few paragraphs because the mods will send me an email.
Click to expand...
What specifically in the umpteen chapter document do you specifically want me to read/comment upon?

Also, who is “Dennis Barton”?

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
What specifically in the umpteen chapter document do you specifically want me to read/comment upon?

Also, who is “Dennis Barton”?

Blessings,
Click to expand...
Comment on the whole tract.
 
David Zampino:
I am familiar with the arguments for the early dating of the Johannine corpus, and find them wanting at best.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that the John’s Gospel is Apostolic in origin?
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Do you agree that the John’s Gospel is Apostolic in origin?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do agree – like I stated in post #17 on this thread.

Blessings,
 
40.png
buffalo:
Comment on the whole tract.
Click to expand...
OK, we’re getting way off track here. The original purpose of the thread was to discuss the authorship of John’s Gospel. Now, you seem to want to move the thread toward dating the Gospels and the Synoptic Problem. If you wish to begin a thread regarding either of these ends, I will be more than happy to participate.

However, you need to do a couple of things:
  1. You need to identify the source of this massive article of yours. Yes, there is a name at the top of the page, but nothing stating who this person is, where he comes from, what qualifies him to comment, etc. I also noticed that the website itself is equally ambiguous as to its owner, affiliation, orthodoxy, qualifications, etc.
  2. You need to distill down specifically what it is you want to talk about. To say “read an umpteen page tract and comment upon the whole thing” is impractical in this setting. As you know, we’re limited to so many words per post! 🙂
So again,

What is it that you want to talk about? Possible dates of composition of various books of the NT? Synoptic priority?

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
However, you need to do a couple of things:
  1. You need to identify the source of this massive article of yours. Yes, there is a name at the top of the page, but nothing stating who this person is, where he comes from, what qualifies him to comment, etc. I also noticed that the website itself is equally ambiguous as to its owner, affiliation, orthodoxy, qualifications, etc.
Click to expand...
And any of this validates or invalidates his findings?
 
David Zampino:
Yes, I do agree – like I stated in post #17 on this thread.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
Thanks. Since the Gospel was most likely written over a number of years, it would seem likely that some parts were written earlier then others. When do you think the writing stated? How do you determine the end date of the Johannine corpus?
 
buffalo said:
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Code: 
             **By**

             **Dennis Barton**

             **
        The Gospels are Historical
**Part 1

FOREWORD
Code: 
            The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written             dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious **and widespread **doubts about the             historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
With respect, this is a complete non-sequitor. Whether Mark was written first or whether Matthew was written first has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical reliability of the Gospels.
40.png
buffalo:
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.

This is a very strong claim. Chronology used by whom? Where? By what authority?
40.png
buffalo:
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus.** The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.**

A Markan priority does not debate the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus. This is a non-sequitor.
40.png
buffalo:
more…
Click to expand...
**
**
Click to expand...

How does a Markan priority cast doubts on the historicity of the Gospels?

Blessings,
 
40.png
buffalo:
And any of this validates or invalidates his findings?
Click to expand...
Um, actually, yes, it could.

Come on, you’re avoiding the issue here. I’m not going to blindly swallow unknown material, esp. when asked for background information, I receive evasions.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
Um, actually, yes, it could.

Come on, you’re avoiding the issue here. I’m not going to blindly swallow unknown material, esp. when asked for background information, I receive evasions.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
Don’t read it then.
 
David Zampino:
With respect, this is a complete non-sequitor. Whether Mark was written first or whether Matthew was written first has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical reliability of the Gospels.

This is a very strong claim. Chronology used by whom? Where? By what authority?

A Markan priority does not debate the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus. This is a non-sequitor.

How does a Markan priority cast doubts on the historicity of the Gospels?

Blessings,
Click to expand...
You are kidding right? Have you been living in the dark for te last 40 or 50 years?
 
Greetings,
40.png
Maranatha:
Thanks. Since the Gospel was most likely written over a number of years, it would seem likely that some parts were written earlier then others.
Click to expand...
Actually is not what I said. You asked if I accepted the Apostolicity of the Gospel. I said yes. I also said that accepting the Apostolicity of the Gospel does not necessarily preclude recognizing that the document underwent an editing process. I referred specifically to the Prologue and the Second Ending. I also made it very clear that I rejected those scholars who would “edit out” miracles, etc.

I have NOT suggested that the Apostle wrote the Gospel over a number of years.
40.png
Maranatha:
When do you think the writing stated? How do you determine the end date of the Johannine corpus?
Click to expand...
The enormous majority of scholars – liberal AND conservative; Protestant AND Catholic; place the entire corpus between the late 80’s and 100. This dovetails with the most probable date of John’s exile on Patmos; the tradition of his very long life; and the tradition of his “Elder Statesman” status and eventual death in Ephesus somewhere around the turn of the 1st century. As of yet, I have seen no good argument to suggest otherwise, although one may exist.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
Greetings,

Actually is not what I said. You asked if I accepted the Apostolicity of the Gospel. I said yes. I also said that accepting the Apostolicity of the Gospel does not necessarily preclude recognizing that the document underwent an editing process. I referred specifically to the Prologue and the Second Ending. I also made it very clear that I rejected those scholars who would “edit out” miracles, etc.

I have NOT suggested that the Apostle wrote the Gospel over a number of years.
Click to expand...
Thanks again. The length of the writing was my postulation. I’m sorry if I made it seem that it was yours.

I understand it seems reasonable that John had the help of editors or ghost writers. In either case, I would would find it very unlikely that those helping with the Gospel’s construction would have changed (added or removed) anything meaningful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top