D
David_Zampino
Guest
I agree.
Blessings,
- Status
Blessings,
K
Klm
Guest
Wow! I never thought my simple question would be the source of so much debate! Yet I am pleased to see that all of you agree with Sacred Tradition. That helps me. A lot! Honestly, whoever wrote John’s gospel ( incidently the authorship of his letters and Revelations was also called into question) isn’t, for me, an issue of faith, but rather one of curiousity. What can I say, I’m a nerd. My reasoning for believing in John’s authorship were simple.
- He spent at least as much of his life with Mary as with his own parents. She clearly was an amazing woman, or Jesus would not have turned out to be the man that he was - I’m speaking of his humanity here, not discounting his divinity. She would have been a great influence on his life.
- Since he died in Ephesus, he clearly travelled. Therefore, he would have picked up much education during his long life.
3)The Holy Spirit, added to his special close relationship with Jesus. - Because it was written last, he was most probably aware of the contents of the other gospels, so he filled in the blanks, as it were, concentrating of the divinity of Christ, the Logos. Instead of re-telling what had already been written three times, he enhanced it and expanded it. Hence the difference in his gospel with the other three.
Just my thoughts.
Kris
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Something about your question piqued my interest, so I did some research today in my Navarre commentary on St. John.
The editor(s) of this particular (very traditional, very conservative) Catholic commentary place the entire Johannine corpus in the AD 95-98 range, beginning with his writing Revelation, while in exile. With regard to whether the prologue and the 2nd ending were added later; the commentary does consider the entire text to have been written by John, but also suggests the possibility that with regard to the prologue, John “may” have been using a source, like an early Christian hymn about Christ. With regard to the 2nd ending, the commentator recognizes that there are two different endings and suggests that the Apostle added a conclusion to his own work.
Don’t know if this is revelant, but in light of the discussion, thought it might interest you . . .
Blessings,
L
Latin_Catholic_1
Guest
Dear Klm:
Theologians say John’s Gospel was not really written by him but by someone else.
So,* it’s a safe bet * to say John’s Gospel was in fact written by John the Apostle.
Blessings.
L
Latin_Catholic_1
Guest
Actually, that is not correct.
The proper axiom is: “If the Bible says it, it is just not true.”
It can’t be, since ole school writers were all liars.
They all lie !
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Believe me, not all theologians lie!!!
D
David_Zampino
Guest
A statement I resist utterly.
Many theologians are inauthentic.
NOT ALL!!!
Some of us are converts who have given up much for the sake of the Truth!
Blessings,
M
Maranatha
Guest
David Zampino:
Thanks. I did find this interesting.
D
donosti
Guest
It is very clear that John wrote his Gospel,and that can be seen on his testimony on the last chapter of it.
L
Latin_Catholic_1
Guest
David Zampino:
My words “theologians say” should be understood as “most theologians say”.
Of course I know not all theologians believe in it: just the “trendy group” of them (that is the clear majority these days).
Dear Mr. Zampino:
My words “theologians say” should be understood as “most theologians say”.
Of course I know not all theologians believe in it: just the “trendy group” of them (that is the clear majority these days).
B
buffalo
Guest
David Zampino:
Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations
and Approaches of Exegesis Today
**by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
**
**from the article:
**
Gradually, however, the picture became more and more confused. The various theories increased and multiplied and separated one from the other and became a veritable fence which blocked access to the Bible for all the uninitiated. Those who were initiated were no longer reading the Bible anyway, but were dissecting it into the various parts from which it had to have been composed. The methodology itself seems to require such a radical approach: it cannot stand still when it “scents” the operation of man in sacred history. It must try to remove all the irrational residue and clarify everything. Faith itself is not a component of this method. Nor is God a factor to be dealt with in historical events. But since God and divine action permeate the entire biblical account of history, one is obliged to begin with a complicated anatomy of the scriptural word. On one hand there is the attempt to unravel the various threads (of the narrative) so that in the end one holds in one’s hands what is the “really historical,” which means the purely human element in events. On the other hand, one has to try to show how it happened that the idea of God became interwoven through it all. And so it is that another “real” history is to be fashioned in place of the one given. Underneath the existing sources — that is to say, the biblical books themselves — we are supposed to find more original sources, which in turn become the criteria for interpretation. No one should really be surprised that this procedure leads to the sprouting of ever more numerous hypotheses until finally they turn into a jungle of contradictions. In the end, one no longer learns what the text says, but what it should have said, and by which component parts this can be traced back through the text. **[1]
**
more…
Maybe this will help:
Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations
and Approaches of Exegesis Today
**by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
**
**from the article:
**
Gradually, however, the picture became more and more confused. The various theories increased and multiplied and separated one from the other and became a veritable fence which blocked access to the Bible for all the uninitiated. Those who were initiated were no longer reading the Bible anyway, but were dissecting it into the various parts from which it had to have been composed. The methodology itself seems to require such a radical approach: it cannot stand still when it “scents” the operation of man in sacred history. It must try to remove all the irrational residue and clarify everything. Faith itself is not a component of this method. Nor is God a factor to be dealt with in historical events. But since God and divine action permeate the entire biblical account of history, one is obliged to begin with a complicated anatomy of the scriptural word. On one hand there is the attempt to unravel the various threads (of the narrative) so that in the end one holds in one’s hands what is the “really historical,” which means the purely human element in events. On the other hand, one has to try to show how it happened that the idea of God became interwoven through it all. And so it is that another “real” history is to be fashioned in place of the one given. Underneath the existing sources — that is to say, the biblical books themselves — we are supposed to find more original sources, which in turn become the criteria for interpretation. No one should really be surprised that this procedure leads to the sprouting of ever more numerous hypotheses until finally they turn into a jungle of contradictions. In the end, one no longer learns what the text says, but what it should have said, and by which component parts this can be traced back through the text. **[1]
**
more…
C
cialovesyou
Guest
Of course you have done enough biblical studies to be in a position to slander Fr.Brown?
“Real Catholics”…How did you arrive at the position of identifying them?
Since Father Brown was, and his work is very highly considered by the Church, I can only see that it is in fact YOU who are not orthodox.
R
RepentorPerish
Guest
The New American Bible Footnotes should be totally and utterly rejected.
Don’t read or listen to those footnotes get a different Bible .
Don’t read or listen to those footnotes get a different Bible .
W
Wisdom
Guest
I disagree you have to pick and choose there is stuff to learn form even the NAB which is a good translation by the way apart - even the staff at catholic answers say its an acceptable translation though they pefere the RSVCE because of the gender neutral problems of the NAB which are not extreme as many other translations and can easily be modified as they are for our liturfical readings.
Ok there are some thing you clearly reject that contradict the faith that you get from the NAB but there are some things that we as modern catholic should concede to scholarship. For example the notes rightly point out that parts of John are not by one author and they give good reasons that we should consider for that is the case. For example the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery is a clear addition as the earliest greek manuscripts have this story missing in fact very few manuscripts have the story we get it in part from the later Latin manuscripts of John. But it shouldn’t shatter you faith as teh notes in the NAB rightly point out we are not protestants whose canonization hangs on authorship alone the magesterium of the catholic church has declared it canonical thus it is. Despite the fact the author is not John it is canonical and that really is the bottom line here. Of course we have the same thing going on the Gospel of Mark the early Greek manuscripts don’t have the addendum of the appearances to Mary Magadelne and the disciples nor the commision nor the Assension this was all added all the earliest Greek Manuscripts have this missing as modern scholarship rightly points out it is not till you access 7-9th century manuscripts that these add ons appear. Now it is true the NAB has thrown out traditional understanding ie the Baby with the Bathwater but your approach to dump the NAB and modern scholarship alltogether is the same thing it is to dump all modern findings and scholarship ie the Baby with the bathwater.
There is more moderate approach taht we should take conceding the proven findings of modern scholarhsip and defining modern opinion for what it is opinion and not fact ie JOhn was uneducated that is merly opinion. If we treat that as such it is entirely reasonable he wrote the larger mass of the Book of John but there are strong reasons that are credible that he was not the author of all the modern book of John as we know it. As catholics this should not bother us as the book is canonized by the church not by St John the apostle. If the church took an early apostolic tradition from another source so be it, I don’t have a problem with that. WE must use our brains people and respect tradition and acknowledge the verfiable findings of modern scholarhsip we are not fundamentalist and should not be afraid of what has been found since the scholarhsip of St Jerome.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I am reminded of The Curate’s Egg. It was a cartoon in Punch. A CofE curate is having breakfast with his Bishop. He is picking at his egg which is apparently past its use-by date. When asked, "How is your egg?" ; he replies,* “Parts of it are quite good.”
*
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
This John seems to have been of a priestly family, and was thus an erudite thinker. He was certainly not a farmer or a fisher.
Actually, the word ‘Jew’ and its derivitives occurs only in non Latin translations.
The word commonly mistranslated as ‘Jew’, ‘Iudaeus’ means literally, ‘Judaean’, or native of Judaea. The word is used in the same context as Galilean or Samaritan, and is used purely as a description of nationality.
In the OT, however, the word is commonly used, before , usually, the inception of the nation of Judea, to refer to members of the clan of Judah.
The name used by all these people, in the time of the ministry, to refer to what some of us think of as Jews, was ‘Child of Israel’, or in short form, ‘Child’.
It is commonly postulated that the Gospels were produced in a very short effort. It is never considered that what we hold is the product of a lifetime’s continuous editing.
Thus we see in John, some sprkling jottings of the instant, and also some deep meditations that have taken years to crystalize.
Bear in mind that not a few spiritual souls did in fact live to a great age, while maintaining their faculties. The age of 120 years was not so uncommon. 900 years as with Methusalah though seems to have been apochryphal.
P
patrick457
Guest
I believe St. John wrote the Gospel ascribed to him, though that does not preclude his use of a secretary or an anamneusis who may have ‘polished up’ the words dictated to him which explains John’s polished Greek.
Either that, or since according to tradition, He moved to Ephesus along with Mary, it is possible he already had some grasp of Greek when he wrote his gospel.
Though I’m confused. There’s this tradition that John was from a priestly family and was also a priest.
How then could he have been along with James in a fishing boat with their father? Visiting his brother and helping him fish?
Either that, or since according to tradition, He moved to Ephesus along with Mary, it is possible he already had some grasp of Greek when he wrote his gospel.
Though I’m confused. There’s this tradition that John was from a priestly family and was also a priest.
How then could he have been along with James in a fishing boat with their father? Visiting his brother and helping him fish?
F
Fidelis
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
When the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostle’s they were infused with knowledge. What does a poor framer or fishermen then have anything to do with it?
K
kelvinf
Guest
There is!!! Acts 4:13
- Status