RM said
A more plausible candidate is an anonymous forger and liar
** you do not have permission to see this link **
John not having been written by John may be more likely than him having written it. But who is a more likely individual than John to be the beloved disciple or to have written the gospel?
The favorite for a horse race is, most of the time, unlikely to win it.
“The evidence in the synoptics is that James and John considered themselves above and closer to Jesus than the rest of the 12,”
so ? what does this prove? none of them thoguht they were “the BELOVED” by jesus.
“and that this caused annoyance and anger in the others.”
so?
“The evidence in the Gospel of John is that oneof the 12 went around referring to himself as the one Jesus loved.”
no, the gospel of john is identifying one of the unknown from the 12 as “beloved disciple”
not that ONE of the 12 “went around identifying himself as the beloved one”
why is this missing in the synoptics?
“Chapter 21 gives an illustration of this apparent jealousy/tension. When Peter sees turns to see the beloved disciple and says “what about him?” and Jesus replies “If I want him to remain until I return what is that to you?“.
you are quoting something in john to prove that unknown beloved disciple was known in synoptics? when we match faith credential requirement as found in matthew, mark and luke, it is absolutely strange that this “beloved disciple” is not even known or mentioned. this makes no sense.
“Except for chapter 21, a probable later addition, the Zebedees are otherwise unmentioned in the gospel.
It means James or John are excellent candidates for this disciple who referred to himself as the one Jesus loved.”
no it doesn’t. it doesn’t meann that at all.
“The asked to be sat at the right and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom. “When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.“
Which other of the 12 is it likely to be?”
how does that mean any one of them is “beloved disciple” ?
” It will not be so among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave,”
what was your point ? i dont see your point .
“So Luke feels the need to tell his audience that James and John had a very high opinion of themselves and that even Jesus had to rebuke them for it.
Makes them excellent candidates for the disciple that referred to himself as the one Jesus loved right?”
how? how does having a high opinion imply this is johns “beloved disciple” ? we see in john that he has NEGATIVE view of peter and positive view of the beloved disciple, john has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
jakejones said
how? how does having a high opinion imply this is johns “beloved disciple” ? we see in john that he has NEGATIVE view of peter and positive view of the beloved disciple, john has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
Yes thats the point.
The writer of the gospel of John has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
The claim is the the beloved disciple wrote the gospel – so the beloved disciple would then have a high opinion of himself.
The gospel claims jealousy on the part Peter towards the beloved disciple’s position of favor with Jesus.
So to find out who the beloved disciple is supposed to be we should look for a disciple who has a high opinion of themselves and where this high opinion causes tension with the rest of the 12.
no, the gospel of john is identifying one of the unknown from the 12 as “beloved disciple”
not that ONE of the 12 “went around identifying himself as the beloved one”
why is this missing in the synoptics?
The gospel is supposedly written by this beloved disciple – therefore he would be calling himself the beloved disciple.
Its missing from the synoptics because the writers of the synoptics don’t believe he should be called the beloved disciple.
However the synoptics do record that John son of zebedee had a very high opinion of himself.
“Yes thats the point.
The writer of the gospel of John has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.”
so john created a view of a unknown beloved disciple which was not shared by the synoptic writers?
“The claim is the the beloved disciple wrote the gospel – so the beloved disciple would then have a high opinion of himself.”
john created a view about an unknown beloved disciple which is not found in the synoptic writings. why did not the synoptic writers make mention of this unknown disciple?
“The gospel claims jealousy on the part Peter towards the beloved disciple’s position of favor with Jesus.”
first of all none of the synoptics say that peter was jeolous of a beloved disciple.
“So to find out who the beloved disciple is supposed to be we should look for a disciple who has a high opinion of themselves and where this high opinion causes tension with the rest of the 12.”
no it isn’t . this is not criteria. the way john writes about this “beloved disciples” is not to be found in the synoptics for any of jesus’ disciples.
“The gospel is supposedly written by this beloved disciple – therefore he would be calling himself the beloved disciple.”
where does john say that ?
“Its missing from the synoptics because the writers of the synoptics don’t believe he should be called the beloved disciple.”
so john has his own view of the unknown beloved disciples which is not shared by the synoptic writers?
“However the synoptics do record that John son of zebedee had a very high opinion of himself.”
look at the mention of the beloved disciple in john . john 13:23, , john 19:26 , john 20:2 , john 20:4 and john 20:8. thats portraying in a positive light, having a “high opinion” is not a positive light.
brenmcg said
jakejones said
how? how does having a high opinion imply this is johns “beloved disciple” ? we see in john that he has NEGATIVE view of peter and positive view of the beloved disciple, john has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
Yes thats the point.
The writer of the gospel of John has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
The claim is the the beloved disciple wrote the gospel – so the beloved disciple would then have a high opinion of himself.
The gospel claims jealousy on the part Peter towards the beloved disciple’s position of favor with Jesus.
So to find out who the beloved disciple is supposed to be we should look for a disciple who has a high opinion of themselves and where this high opinion causes tension with the rest of the 12.
no, the gospel of john is identifying one of the unknown from the 12 as “beloved disciple”
not that ONE of the 12 “went around identifying himself as the beloved one”
why is this missing in the synoptics?
The gospel is supposedly written by this beloved disciple – therefore he would be calling himself the beloved disciple.
Its missing from the synoptics because the writers of the synoptics don’t believe he should be called the beloved disciple.
However the synoptics do record that John son of zebedee had a very high opinion of himself.
You’re building a case for what you want to believe, not objectively looking at the facts.
Maybe you should read a good commentary on the 4th gospel.
jakejones said
no it isn’t . this is not criteria. the way john writes about this “beloved disciples” is not to be found in the synoptics for any of jesus’ disciples.
Right – but why do you think this affects my argument?
“The gospel is supposedly written by this beloved disciple – therefore he would be calling himself the beloved disciple.”
where does john say that ?
John 21:24 “this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down”
so john has his own view of the unknown beloved disciples which is not shared by the synoptic writers?
Yes the synoptic writers dont agree with john’s self description if being the belived disciple.
look at the mention of the beloved disciple in john . john 13:23, , john 19:26 , john 20:2 , john 20:4 and john 20:8. thats portraying in a positive light, having a “high opinion” is not a positive light.
I dont understand – I was agreeing with your statement that john has a high opinion of the beloved disciple.
If John was written pre 70 in what way would that be “supernatural”? There’d be nothing remarkable about it whatsoever.
You’re right, if the gospel of John were actually written pre-70s there would be no need to appeal to the supernatural. But in John 2:19 Jesus alludes to the association between his death and the destruction of the Temple (made much more explicit in the synoptics), and in John 11:48 Caiaphas explicitly refers to what’s coming. Now If I found an old anonymous document that referred to the end of a world wide war as a result of the explosion of a huge bomb I wouldn’t assume the writer was making a prophecy of Hiroshima. I would assume it was being written after the event.
A careful sifting of the evidence would reveal that when it comes to dating the gospel of John there is almost nothing to go on. Written after 30 and written before 200. After that its anyone’s guess.
Not so as I’ve quoted but even if we assume you’re correct and dating is that hopeless you still wouldn’t have any more of a reason to suggest an early date. Unless you take the position “if you can’t prove me wrong then that means I’m right“. I have to say I get a whiff of this approach in a lot of these attempts to hold on to immediate apostolic witness.
That leaves 3 possibilities
1) John was written before Jerusalem was destroyed
2) The author of John wasn’t aware Jerusalem had been destroyed when writing the gospel
3) The author was aware it had been destroyed but was trying to trick his readers into believing he was writing pre Jerusalem’s destruction.
Rather than write the world’s longest post I would recommend that anyone who’s interested secure a good historical/critical commentary which will explain the issues of dating these documents. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a special case here as it is in other ways. Fortunately the gospel writer was well served by Father Brown’s three volume work.
Stephen said
If John was written pre 70 in what way would that be “supernatural”? There’d be nothing remarkable about it whatsoever.You’re right, if the gospel of John were actually written pre-70s there would be no need to appeal to the supernatural. But in John 2:19 Jesus alludes to the association between his death and the destruction of the Temple (made much more explicit in the synoptics), and in John 11:48 Caiaphas explicitly refers to what’s coming. Now If I found an old anonymous document that referred to the end of a world wide war as a result of the explosion of a huge bomb I wouldn’t assume the writer was making a prophecy of Hiroshima. I would assume it was being written after the event.
Yes because the prediction would be too specific. But what if the prediction was just that Nazi Germany would start a new war in Europe – would you think it could only have been written after the event?
What if you read a 19th century work predicting that slavery could only be ended through a war between the states – would you think it could only have been written afterwards?
Rebellions against Rome were a constant threat leading up to 70 and everyone knew what the likely outcome would be. This is a good reason for the Jewish leadership opposition to Jesus. If everyone believed he was the messiah they might rebel against Rome – and they knew what the likely Roman response would be. The leadership worked with Rome because they wanted to protect the temple.
It should also be noted that the temple in the first century was the second temple – the first had been destroyed. Ergo John 2:19.
Not so as I’ve quoted but even if we assume you’re correct and dating is that hopeless you still wouldn’t have any more of a reason to suggest an early date. Unless you take the position “if you can’t prove me wrong then that means I’m right“. I have to say I get a whiff of this approach in a lot of these attempts to hold on to immediate apostolic witness.
But I’m not trying to prove that its early – I don’t think there’s enough information either way. I’m just trying to counter the claim that an objective sifting of the evidence will lead to the conclusion that it was written in the 90s and that any attempt to claim it could be earlier would be an appeal to the supernatural.
The gospel is supposedly written by this beloved disciple – therefore he would be calling himself the beloved disciple.” where does john say that ? John 21:24 “this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down” ///////
Thats not the beloved disciple speaking, thats someone talking about the disciple
brenmcg said
Stephen said
If John was written pre 70 in what way would that be “supernatural”? There’d be nothing remarkable about it whatsoever.
You’re right, if the gospel of John were actually written pre-70s there would be no need to appeal to the supernatural. But in John 2:19 Jesus alludes to the association between his death and the destruction of the Temple (made much more explicit in the synoptics), and in John 11:48 Caiaphas explicitly refers to what’s coming. Now If I found an old anonymous document that referred to the end of a world wide war as a result of the explosion of a huge bomb I wouldn’t assume the writer was making a prophecy of Hiroshima. I would assume it was being written after the event.
Yes because the prediction would be too specific. But what if the prediction was just that Nazi Germany would start a new war in Europe – would you think it could only have been written after the event?
What if you read a 19th century work predicting that slavery could only be ended through a war between the states – would you think it could only have been written afterwards?
Rebellions against Rome were a constant threat leading up to 70 and everyone knew what the likely outcome would be. This is a good reason for the Jewish leadership opposition to Jesus. If everyone believed he was the messiah they might rebel against Rome – and they knew what the likely Roman response would be. The leadership worked with Rome because they wanted to protect the temple.
It should also be noted that the temple in the first century was the second temple – the first had been destroyed. Ergo John 2:19.
Not so as I’ve quoted but even if we assume you’re correct and dating is that hopeless you still wouldn’t have any more of a reason to suggest an early date. Unless you take the position “if you can’t prove me wrong then that means I’m right“. I have to say I get a whiff of this approach in a lot of these attempts to hold on to immediate apostolic witness.
But I’m not trying to prove that its early – I don’t think there’s enough information either way. I’m just trying to counter the claim that an objective sifting of the evidence will lead to the conclusion that it was written in the 90s and that any attempt to claim it could be earlier would be an appeal to the supernatural.
“Too specific”? hmmmmm…
What exactly are you defending here? If a “prophecy” is not specific then how is it a prophecy? (But then the best prophecies are those which are ambiguous and can be interpreted, right?) It may have been sucking up to the big boss of course but Josephus says Titus was inclined to moderation and intended to spare the Temple because of its age and that its destruction was initiated because of a fire that got out of hand. At any rate it wasn’t inevitable that the Temple be destroyed as well as the city. So when the traditions focus on the Temple or both then how more specific can you be?
Can you clarify your comment referencing the First Temple and John 2:19? Are you saying Jesus was referring to the First Temple? If so good try. This is one of those passages that makes some folks think John knew Mark which exudes the destruction of the Second Temple out of its pores.
I have not made a claim that John was written in the mid-90s. I am responding to your mention of the pre-70s. Actually the gospel of Mark is the one we should be talking about. Do you understand why historical-critical scholars claim it was written during the time of the First Revolt? I’m asking that not to be a condescending smart-a** but because to critique a view we have to understand it. The case for an association between Mark and the destruction of the Temple is a stronger than you might think if all you think is that the 70ish date is the result of “liberal” scholarship. On the other hand the contention that I have heard in some quarters that Mark might have been written as early as the 40s is real thin on the ground.
I don’t know that I agree with him in this specific example, but what I think brenmcg is trying to say is the distinction between a genuine prophecy (based on some supernatural ability) and a mere prediction (which might be an educated evaluation or guess based on a sense of the context and intelligent analysis or intuition about) of some future event. A prophecy might be that the DOW will hit a level of 37,821 on a given date, and fall 9,567 points in a single day, while a prediction might be that the DOW is too high and there is bound to be a correction by the end of the year.
Stephen said
“Too specific”? hmmmmm…
What exactly are you defending here? If a “prophecy” is not specific then how is it a prophecy? (But then the best prophecies are those which are ambiguous and can be interpreted, right?) It may have been sucking up to the big boss of course but Josephus says Titus was inclined to moderation and intended to spare the Temple because of its age and that its destruction was initiated because of a fire that got out of hand. At any rate it wasn’t inevitable that the Temple be destroyed as well as the city. So when the traditions focus on the Temple or both then how more specific can you be?
It doesn’t need to be inevitable that it gets destroyed, just that everyone is aware of the very great possibility that the Roman response to an full-scale insurrection would be to either destroy the temple or remove its use from the Jews.
When Philo wrote about Caligula’s order in 41 to set up a statue of himself in the temple, he writes that a traveler from Judea claimed “our temple is destroyed”.
The point is that the possible destruction or loss of the temple was on people’s minds before 70 – and simply having a writer say “the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation” doesn’t mean he is writing after 70.
Can you clarify your comment referencing the First Temple and John 2:19? Are you saying Jesus was referring to the First Temple? If so good try. This is one of those passages that makes some folks think John knew Mark which exudes the destruction of the Second Temple out of its pores.
That John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days”. Could just as easily be speaking about the destruction of the first temple as the second.
Why would Mark, and all the rest, have Jesus cleanse the temple if they all knew it was going to be destroyed? Why a triumphal entry into what will be destroyed? Why not have Jesus declare it irredeemable and leave it to its fate? If they’re writing after 70 then god has passed judgement on it – why have Jesus embrace it? Why teach in the temple court? Why not outside what god has appointed for destruction?
I have not made a claim that John was written in the mid-90s. I am responding to your mention of the pre-70s. Actually the gospel of Mark is the one we should be talking about. Do you understand why historical-critical scholars claim it was written during the time of the First Revolt? I’m asking that not to be a condescending smart-a** but because to critique a view we have to understand it. The case for an association between Mark and the destruction of the Temple is a stronger than you might think if all you think is that the 70ish date is the result of “liberal” scholarship. On the other hand the contention that I have heard in some quarters that Mark might have been written as early as the 40s is real thin on the ground.
The gospel we should be discussing is Matthew, which was the first to be written – but either way the only positive piece of evidence for dating post 70 is the alleged reference to the temple’s destruction in 70.
JAS said
I don’t know that I agree with him in this specific example, but what I think brenmcg is trying to say is the distinction between a genuine prophecy (based on some supernatural ability) and a mere prediction (which might be an educated evaluation or guess based on a sense of the context and intelligent analysis or intuition about) of some future event. A prophecy might be that the DOW will hit a level of 37,821 on a given date, and fall 9,567 points in a single day, while a prediction might be that the DOW is too high and there is bound to be a correction by the end of the year.
It may even have been a common prophecy by others at the time. How many prophets even today would say the destruction of the temple mount or Israel itself will usher in the endtimes?
What is it about the prophecy of the temple’s destruction in the synoptics that is in any way specific to 70? Nothing. Just a general prophecy of the temple’s destruction ushering in the endtimes at some non-specific time in the future.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)