Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View The first Gospel was John
5 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2008 - 3:20PM #1
haggaion
haggaion
Posts: 1,972
Often the GOJ is dismissed as late, and reflects a late 1st or early second century date and thus provides the early church’s revision of Jesus, rather than the core of the gospel being from eyewitnesses.

Why should anyone assume a late date for the Gospel of John? As far as I can see, there is no reason to assume it was not written before 70 AD.

Below I have list 13 points to prove my case. This being this is a debate board, I would assume you will provide hard evidence to the contrary. I don’t care it you “lift arguments” from various scholars, but remember, I am looking for decent proof to the contrary. Name dropping will not fly here.

1. The single most debatable and climatic event of the period, that being the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple, but is never once mentioned or eluded to as a past fact in the gospel of John.

2. Rylands P52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant [COLOR=black]New Testament canonical[/COLOR] record. It contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is to be dated as early as 100-130AD. The style of the script for P52 is strongly [COLOR=black]Hadrianic, which would suggest the date I mentioned above. Also, being it was a copy, and it was found in Egypt, that would require a significant time lapse from the original. I admit early church fathers of the first ½ of the 2nd century do not mention John, but this manuscript points to its existence. Maybe its pattern of circulation differed from the other Gospels and so never fell into the hands of Justin etc.[/COLOR]

3. The present tense in John 5:2 "there is" suggests a time when the gate is still standing, unlike after the destruction by Titus.

4. John mentions certain historical facts not mentioned in the other gospels.

5. He did not use Matthew Mark or Luke, and seems to be unaware of Q. If Matthew and Luke know Mark, and John did not, there is a prima facie case for putting the 4th Gospel before the 1st and 3rd. Where he agrees with the synoptics, it seems the synoptics are aware of his story such as the resurrection narratives (Compare Mark 16:9 with John 20)

John is not dependent upon the synoptics for his material and therefore does not for this reason have to be dated after them.

6. Even though John reflects a high Christology, it is no higher that Paul in such passages as Philippians 2 which was well before 70AD.

7. Current scholarship now sees John’s use of such concepts as Light and Dark, and the Logos as reflective more of DDS than dualist theology and Philo than Gnosticism. Compare the "Sons of Dark and Light" found in the DSS as closer in thought than any Gnostic text ( which you need to reproduce to make a counter point) Although that is just scholarly babble, the use of John’s language as reflecting Gnostic thought is pretty much discounted by most today, even the atheist and well know critical scholar from Duke, Bart Ehrmann (which actually counts for nothing in this).

8. His theology of the resurrection is less developed than Paul’s, unlike Paul, he never mentions that believers will rise with Christ.

9. There is here no hint of the process of apocalypticization, a trend we find in the latter NT books and gospels. It is just not found, why? Also, contrast that with Revelation.

10. John also avoids the noun form of “faith.” (pistos) In other words, the ecclesiastical idea of “the faith” is not found ever in John which leaves one to wonder why. It seems that the community in which John wrote his gospel did not yet have a body of doctrine, or John did not show any interest in it. You would think, if John is late, the church as having a body of belief would be emphasized more.

11. He does not use the liturgy of the “Lords Supper” as found in 1 Corinthians 15 and the synoptics. I say it was not yet part of the tradition.

12. The aversive position that the Gospel takes toward the Jewish leadership (“synagogue of Satan” type expression, only found in John) reflects the early tensions of the church and synagogue, not a post 70 AD situation where there was a "parting of the ways."

13. The author of the gospel claims to have been an eyewitness, unlike the other gospels.

Haggaion
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2008 - 2:46PM #2
evan1
evan1
Posts: 14
Hi Haggaion,

[QUOTE=haggaion;190103]Often the GOJ is dismissed as late, and reflects a late 1st or early second century date and thus provides the early church’s revision of Jesus, rather than the core of the gospel being from eyewitnesses.

Why should anyone assume a late date for the Gospel of John? As far as I can see, there is no reason to assume it was not written before 70 AD.

Below I have list 13 points to prove my case. This being this is a debate board, I would assume you will provide hard evidence to the contrary. I don’t care it you “lift arguments” from various scholars, but remember, I am looking for decent proof to the contrary. Name dropping will not fly here.[/QUOTE]


Points 2 and 6-11 do help with dating the document, but not in the way you suggest.

Writings by the eyewitnesses of Jesus need not be "harmonized" with the writings of Paul. Paul's own claim is that the disciples "added nothing to me", and the documented differences between the two groups permit their respective doctrines to be viewed as completely separate entities.

In fact the lack of harmony between books like John and James versus the writings of Paul confirm that all of the authors were contemporary. They were debating each other.

The other points are valid - either it was written when and by who the document claims, or the claim is false. If false, the author is being deceptive while writing a document that teaches about truth. This would make the author of John a hypocrite of the worst kind.

E.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook