tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post4834449902758957421..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: When was the Fourth Gospel composed? Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-83764987364809012122018-05-23T15:45:49.931+01:002018-05-23T15:45:49.931+01:00@William - I assume it was because after his resur...@William - I assume it was because after his resurrection Lazarus had become a 'new person' and probably had a different name or designation... it feels like the author expected the intended audience to know such matters already. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-63409989852131519962018-05-23T15:38:57.957+01:002018-05-23T15:38:57.957+01:00Any ideas as to why Lazarus suddenly becomes anony...Any ideas as to why Lazarus suddenly becomes anonymous ("the disciple whom Jesus loved") halfway through the story? I would have assumed it was for protection, because there was a plot to kill him (John 12:10-11), but that doesn't make sense if he couldn't be killed.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-62974943464006353582018-05-14T18:40:08.947+01:002018-05-14T18:40:08.947+01:00Whether or not the author of John could die is irr...Whether or not the author of John could die is irrelevant to whether his writings could get Peter or other Christians killed by members of Caiaphas' family.<br />- Carter CraftTheDoctorofOdoIslandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06654695224557150961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73920269294881189652018-05-14T17:57:12.049+01:002018-05-14T17:57:12.049+01:00@Carter - They don't strike me as strong argum...@Carter - They don't strike me as strong arguments; especially since the author of the Fourth Gospel did not abandon Jesus when he was arrested but stayed with him throughout the trials and crucifixion - not a man to be intimidated about 'naming names'. Also, it is probable that the book was written for a specific, closed group. (Also, Lazarus could not be killed - because he had been resurrected! - and I believe the text tells us explicitly that Lazarus was *resurrected*, and not merely brought 'back to life'.)Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-11352931981676866202018-05-14T17:26:34.510+01:002018-05-14T17:26:34.510+01:00Since I don't believe chapter 21 was amended l...Since I don't believe chapter 21 was amended later, I've maintained that the whole book was written after Peter's death.<br /><br />In support of this I'd point out that John names specific persons in relating the events in Chirst's arrest- Caiaphas is identified as leading the conspiracy, Peter is identified as the apostle who attacked one of Caiaphas' servants, and the servant is identified as Malchus. This seems like sensitive information that wouldn't have been revealed until after the people involved were all dead. Mark avoids identifying these individuals when describing the same incident, either because he doesn't know who did what or in order to protect their anonymity. If John were written before Mark then those details would have been generally known and there would have been no point in concealing them. The most logical explanation to me is that Mark was written, as traditionally thought, by a companion of Peter while he was still alive, and John was written later after Peter's death, while the other two synoptics followed Mark's lead and could have been written before or after John.<br /><br />Though I think the last Gospel written was actually Luke.<br /><br />- Carter Craft TheDoctorofOdoIslandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06654695224557150961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-33922207680104248392018-05-14T15:34:59.761+01:002018-05-14T15:34:59.761+01:00@Mike - I don't think anyone would call me a T...@Mike - I don't think anyone would call me a Trinitarian; but certainly a Roman Catholic would not! I think the whole *issue*, which led to the development of Trinitarian disputes and wars, theories and creeds; is an (unfortunate) Red Herring - consequent on intellectuals trying to fit Christianity into pre-existant philosophy. <br /><br />I believe that Jesus is 100% divine, is necessary for salvation, is the Son of God, creator of this earth etc. But how I explain it, and the relation to the Holy Ghost, is Not Trinitarian. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-19253039185671221462018-05-14T14:11:35.972+01:002018-05-14T14:11:35.972+01:00Are you a Trinitarian? To be fair, I'm a catho...Are you a Trinitarian? To be fair, I'm a catholic.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07444088245515168023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-79491304975247796002018-05-14T13:28:28.401+01:002018-05-14T13:28:28.401+01:00John A. T. Robinson, in his "The Priority of ...John A. T. Robinson, in his "The Priority of John," makes the case that John is early (probably the first Gospel composed) and authoritative, and where it differs from the Synoptics John is correct.<br /><br />I read Robinson's book a number of years ago, and it is revelatory. It should be required reading for all Christians.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-71173905693963006532018-05-14T13:11:21.416+01:002018-05-14T13:11:21.416+01:00@Samuel - Thanks - Your comment emphasises what a ...@Samuel - Thanks - Your comment emphasises what a big difference assumptions make. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-76523769559868274922018-05-14T10:39:32.574+01:002018-05-14T10:39:32.574+01:00The most distinctive evidence for a later composit...The most distinctive evidence for a later composition of John is it's highly developed Christology, i.e. Jesus is presented much more as defined by his divine, than by his human, attributes. There is a confidence in the style of John lacking (for the most part) in the synoptics. The synoptics present disciples who were confused, did not understand the full import of Jesus and indeed held to a highly Jewish conception of what Messiah-ship should mean. These issues have been "worked out" in John, which many scholars and theologians take to mean that this more highly developed Christology was worked out and thought through over time. <br /><br />One can also use Paul's Epistles as a reference point since they are by most the earliest Christian writings: is the Christology of Paul more similar to the Fourth Gospel or to the Synoptics? That is a question I do not have confidence to answer at the moment. <br /><br />Another highly distinctive aspect of John compared to the Synoptics is that Jesus is far more vocal and upfront to those OTHER THAN his disciples about who he is and what he represents. The Synoptics present a Jesus who wants his identity (as Messiah) to be hidden from others: time and again he tells the disciples or the beneficiaries of his healing powers NOT to tell anyone else. In John, in contrast, Jesus explicitly uses his miraculous powers to prove his identity to the larger world and to the Jewish priestly class in particular. Thus, when asked whether the blind man or his parents had sinned (and thus brought about the man's blindness), Jesus says "neither". Rather, the man was blind so that the power of God might be made manifest in Jesus to the world. Similarly with Lazarus. This distinction with the Synoptics does not necessarily go the question of dating in that the way that I think the Christological argument does, but it is a highly prominent difference between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel in any event.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-39610124929273292752018-05-14T10:27:34.588+01:002018-05-14T10:27:34.588+01:00@William - wrt: 2. There is, of course, a possibil...@William - wrt: 2. There is, of course, a possibility of small (inessential) 'editorial'/ transcriber additions to any ancient text during composition and transmissions - so we should be cuatious about using these in dating. <br /><br />wrt 3: It seems clear to me that to assume that the writings of early Church Fathers 'got it right' is itself a very big assumption; and one I do not hold (since I believe that they mostly adhered to an already-existing, false, non-scriptural, monotheistic/ credal-Trinitarian metaphysics, which they fitted-Christianity-into. <br /><br />This 'philosophy first' implicit bias operates as early as Paul, who seems compelled to devise an 'original sin' explanation (and other ingenious complexities) to patch some of the internal inconsistencies arising from this perspective which he knew so well and had internatilsed. <br /><br />These in order to account for the incarnation/ death/ resurrection of Jesus being *necessary* to salvation; and that salvation was something that could not be accomplished by The Father unaided (despite The Father being an infinitely competent 'omni God'). And the core problem, for a strict monotheist, that there was and could-only-be one God - yet Jesus was wholly divine. <br /><br />The simple polytheist (henotheistic) solution, and the obvious inference from the Fourth Gospel (including that Jesus created this world - if not its 'people'), was ruled-out by these deep assumptions. <br /><br />As we know; these analyses and critiques come from Mormon doctrine/ theology. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-9352659670662359402018-05-14T10:00:13.041+01:002018-05-14T10:00:13.041+01:00The usual evidence for a late date for "John&...The usual evidence for a late date for "John" is:<br /><br />1. It's different from the synoptics.<br /><br />2. It refers to Christians being put out of the synagogues (9:22), which external evidence suggests didn't happen until around AD 90.<br /><br />3. The earliest church fathers (Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp) don't refer to it at all.<br /><br />4. It's really, really different from the synoptics.<br /><br />That's about it, as far as I know. Not the most impressive argument I've ever encountered.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.com