Romans 1:18-2:7:Textual Issue?

The crosspost at Street Prophets brought on an interesting discussion. Usually between the commentaries at Bible.Org and the notes to the New English Translation (NET) most of the serious textual issues with passages are brought up and discussed. Usually. I guess not so much this time:

I wouldn't call this "revelation". At least not the unspiritual hodge-podge that is strung along after 1:17 (running all the way to verse 8 of Chap 2 in my opinion). It juts into the document like a page of emotional notes inserted by a novice. It’s a series of low reflections trying to hitch a ride on a great letter simply on the brute strength of a few stray scriptural allusions and some lurid detail. It is a poor litany of unregenerate sentiment and philosophic drivel, the dross of a lesser mind than Paul’s - one who cannot approach the level of Paul’s genius.

In my opinion the 22 verses starting at 1:18 bear a tone and form that are distinctly different from that of the Epistle as a whole - not to mention the jumble of uncharitable and uncouth words that do not occur anywhere else in Paul.

I say, accept it at your risk. What I believe is that Jesus himself will hold every fundamentalist responsible for emphasizing this kind of pre-Christian stuff in place of his (or Paul’s) true mission and message.

I asked for some sources and got a very good one:

I find that several ancient Greek manuscripts comprising the most complete collections of NT witings are missing key portions of the first 3 chapters of Romans.

Chief among which, from those called the "Western" group of texts [here is one discussion]:

"D" codex Claromontanus, missing Rom 1:1-7 and 1:27-30
"F" codex Augiensis (in both Greek and Latin), missing Rom 1:1 to 3:19
"G" codex Boernerianus, missing Rom 1:1-5 and 2:16-25

And from those called the "Alexandrian" group:
"C" codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, missing Rom 2:5 to 3:21
"P" codex Porphyrianus, missing Rom 2:15 to 3:5

I do not seek to imply that the gaps in these texts suggest the presence of bogus writing in the "fuller" versions (Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, for example). But I believe it is rational to conjecture that some of those gaps might have been created as a means of ending the question of strange or variant texts among the earliest pieces of paper on which the Epistle circulated. Where a strange hand or spirit was noticed, eliminate the passage (especially if the same thought appears elsewhere in the Epistle).

The distinct variety of styles present in the Pauline Epistles (between Romans and Ephesians for example) has been a long-debated question. Here I am talking about an abrupt change of style within the first chapter of one Epistle.

But all of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in the text of Romans (profs. H. Weisse and D. Volter in the 19th Century, to name 2) are (rightly, I think) accused of the sins of subjective judgment and arbitrary decision. So I offer my theory only as a personal guideline.

This seems to be an admission that there is no solid uncontested scholarship on this; and that this is subjective for him as well. My question still is:

Anyone know of something I can look at that discusses the textual issue here?

Back to the comment:

I’m saying Romans 1:18 to about 2:3 (I was rash to push it to the 9th verse) sounds to me like rehash and bad faith, it doesn’t sound like revelation, and it doesn’t sound like Paul at his highest inspiration. What I find in it that is at all worthy is said better elsewhere in the Epistle or in other scripture.

However, your statement is not correct

[Me:] this has been attributed to Paul very nearly universally since the earliest of compilations of Paul's letters - and therefore seen by people who knew Paul.

The first "compilations of Paul's letters" were early, but, with respect to the portion of canonical text in question here, I don't think you can go back earlier than 150 AD with those "attributions" to Paul you mention. I didn't find any in the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr, for example.

I really meant authorship in my comment; but I will pick up this challenge anyway. I think it is hard to find anything to support anything prior to 150AD really, so this is quite a challenge. Elsewhere, the critic accepted the following 4 folks as Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus. I will accept that as a given - and add Clement of Alexandria. Certainly, he was not an Apostolic Father - he was a student of Tatian - however he was one of the founders of Christian literature along with Irenaeus; and Origen was his student. Alexandria became the "brains" of Christianity while Antioch was still its heart. He was in the last 30 years of the second century - but long before the codexs the critic has mentioned. So, I have broadened "before 150" to "second century and before".

Now, short of someone saying the links I am about to give are not by the above four Fathers, then I found allusions to Romans 1:18-32 in two of the four, and outright quotes in one of them. The links:

1. Justin Martyr: none I found
2. Clement of Rome: Verse 32 (paraphrase);
3. Tatian: verse 20 (paraphrase)
4. Clement of Alexandria: Verses 21, 23 and 25, 22
5. Irenaeus: Verses 18, 21, 25, 28;

I restricted myself to two works at the site:

• ANF01: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Schaff, Philip; and
• Fathers of the Second Century by Schaff, Philip.

I believe this meets the requirement to find use of Romans 1:18-32 clearly cited by an Apostolic Father: Irenaeus

However, it doesn't really deal with the textual issue, just the documentary evidence. So, what do you all think about that?

Appendix to the Appendix: The critic addressed the texual issue here

Read more!

A Comment I Made Elsewhere

This was a post-size comment I made over at Street Prophets in a diary called "End Times: A set of prophecies or a set of hallucinations?". The real answer to that question in my mind is: "who knows?". Typically, it appears to me that prophecy isn't:

1. proved until it comes to pass
2. clear until it comes to pass

So, read the diary - and then this comment (go to the link if you want to see the responses):

* * * * * * * * * *

There are so many things here that are just wrong. Then, there are the things here that are certainly not agreed to by all New Testament scholars. I find it hard to take your source as an expert.

Let's start with just plain wrong:

Eventually, the city fell, and the people were slaughtered. Those remaining were expelled from the land. This is the time of the Diaspora--the scattering of the Jews, who were dispersed around the Mediterranean--Asia Minor, Greece, Northern Africa and Europe.

Actually,

Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars.

The next

The author, who we know only as John, had lived through the horrors that accompanied fall of the city.

is only really, really wrong if it means the author was actually in the city during the siege. John was actually in Ephesis in Asia Minor, where he had gone after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome in the early 60's. He took over Paul's duties with the church there. Christians, in general, had been forced out of Jerusalem and Judea prior to the Great Jewish War.

[The Christians still in Judea, etc. sat out the war in Pella. Indeed, their unwillingness to involve themselves in this war cemented the final split of the Christians and the Jews.]

Then,

When you are dealing with an end times fundamentalist Christian, you are dealing with a person who believes that the Bible was written by God- God writes it and there is a secret code and if you are in the know you will know the code and the elect will know the code. The Bible itself becomes a magical book, a secret script.

Huh? Who believes this? What folks believe is that prophecy in scripture is never exact, is almost always drapped in allegory and symbolic language, and therefore the events (such as Christ's life) that are prophesied usually help clarify the prophesy when they occur. However, there is no "secret code" or "secret knowledge" - it is all written for all to see. Then, on to opinions not shared by all:

The people who actually knew Jesus, the twelve, none of them left writings for us. All of these writings are written well after the death of Jesus.

What is "well after"? What counts as "actually knowing Jesus"? Only three of the 12 are credited even by conservative scholars with New Testament works - John, Matthew, and Peter. However, James, probably Jesus' brother, probably knew him ;-) but wasn't one of the twelve. The Apostles accepted that Paul "knew" Jesus, at least after His resurrection - there is no other reason they would have accepted Paul into the church after his history. Luke and Mark have never been thought of as companions of Jesus - just companions of companions: Paul and Peter respectively. I think it is pretty clear that all of the New Testament works (except Revelations) were completed by 64AD (see Redating the New Testament or these Introductions for the arguments) - or within 30ish years of Jesus' death - and all within the possible lifetimes of the folks who knew him. They were almost all written to pass on knowledge to the church after it became clear that Jesus was not coming back immediately. I believe the earliest of the New Testament works was James (see article linked above) within 15 years of the death of Christ.

Narrowing to Revelations, there are two general views (with a bunch of other minor ones) - preterist (with postmillienialism and amillienialism) and premillienial - related to whether Revelations is looking at events already occurred (as the person interviewed believes); or is a prophetic work. It is interesting that the preterist view is key to replacement theology - that the Christian church has replaced the Jewish people in the promises of God. A small sliver of that group are the Reconstructionists - those real Dominionists - who believe that Revelations shows that only through destruction of what exists and replacement by the Church will God's Kingdom be advanced. These are the folks (along with the preterists in general) that believe God's Kingdom on earth is possible through the actions of Christians (or is spiritually here now).

The premillienialist on the other hand do not think that the events in 70AD resulted in the "end of the Age"; and that therefore the destruction of Jerusalem was not the event looked at in scripture. They believe that human Christians are not capable of creating a Kingdom of God on earth prior to the actual return of Christ to lead that Kingdom - and do not support the Dominionist idea that the governments on Earth must become Christian before Christ can return.

* * * * * * * * * *

I am thinking that last section on "end times" theological differences is pretty weak - it just isn't an area I concentrate on. Y'all can help me straighten out/deepen my understanding.

It isn't an area of interest because I am pretty sure it shouldn't be for a follower of Christ. He said to be ready, but He also made it pretty clear we would not see the scenario coming when it came. So, I think folks who are focused on when the end times are going to get here would be better off focusing on now. Tell me if you think I am wrong about that.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureII. Canonization of the New Testament

Part I ended with the five key questions a book had to face to become part of the New Testament canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?


2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?


3. Did the book tell the truth about God?


4. Did the book come with the power of God?


5. Was the book accepted by the people of God?

Also mentioned there:

The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon.

Certain works are referred to as "from the Lord" or described, and used, as scripture along with the Old Testament. ( 1 Thess 5:27, 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Peter 3:15-16 ). Indeed, the first combined Old Testament quote with something from the New is in

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," [Deut 25:4] and, "The worker deserves his pay." [cf. Luke 10:7]

Those five questions above played out over parts of four centuries as the canon developed, and was finally settled once and for all (sorta) in 367 AD. Breaking the period up into pretty arbitrary divisions:

First Century
the books are written and begin to be copied and disseminated

There are frequent exhortations in scripture for the community read the Apostolic [a key point in future canonization decisions] communications outloud when they meet.

In 95 AD Clement of Rome writes a Letter to the Corinthians where he shows familiarity with Matthew, Luke, Romans, Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and Ephesians

First half of 2nd century
as they become more widely known and cherished, they begin to be cited

The first three great church fathers - Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius - used the bulk of the material of the New Testament in a casual manner - authenticated scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In their writings, only Mark, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter are not clearly cited

The Epistles of Ignatius (c. AD 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters.

It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this,

Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.

Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4)

Papias uses citations from Matthew and Mark and uses them in exposition.

The Gospel of Truth, a gnostic work probably written by Valentinius, treats the Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and Revelations as authoritaive

Marcion in his gnostic canon included Luke, and the letters of Paul (except the pastorals)

Justin Martyr places the Apostlic writings on a par with those of the Old Testament prophets. He freely used "it is written" in talking about the apostolic writings.

Second half of 2nd Century
held a recognized place alongside "scripture", and began to be translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries

Irenaeus - a student of Polycarp who was in turn a student of the Apostles themselves - quotes from almost the entire New Testament as authoritative

Tatian - a pupil of Justin Martyr's - writes a harmony of the four gospels showing their equal standing.

The Muratorian Canon cites the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation

Translations existed in languages from the east to the west of the church - only lacking 2 Peter.

Third Century
the collecting of the books into whole "New Testaments"; and the sifting of Christian literature for that purpose

Revelations was generally accepted in the west, but had variable acceptance in the east.

Hebrews was the reverse.

Indeed, those books with less than full support still occupy the end position in the Bible today: Hebrews - Revelations

Fourth Century
the church fathers stating that conclusions have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church

Eusebius, in his church history covers the status going into Nicea:

• universally agreed: four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews - with questions about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelations;


• admitted by majority: James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude.

Nicea was essentially a rubber-stamp on the Canon; and indeed it really wasn't entirely settled until later in the century - assuming you want to ignore Luther and Calvin's issues.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureI. "Literalist"? Er, No - and Introduction

I got into a "tiff" with a guy I like a lot over at Street Prophets over the use of the word "literalist" or "literalism" when it comes to folks like me who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and that it has authority both as a spiritual guide and in all it asserts (even historically). I am in no way confused that Solomon was talking about real baby deer attached to the chest of his wife. I am also not confused that the bulk of the Gospel accounts is reportage:

Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable nv vuz (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.

So, I get what is "literal" and what is "figurative" - and I understand scripture has both types of writings. However, the "literalist" label - as generally used - isn't about the understanding of literary types. The general conversation (not the one with Russell) goes like this:

Other person: "I am a Christian, but I do not believe [for example] that hell exists [or the resurrection or the Virgin birth or miracles in general] or "I am a Christian, and I think the foundation of Christ's teachings are the Beatitudes [but not the whole Sermon on the Mount] " or "I like the teachings of Jesus - but Paul screwed the whole thing up"

The "literalist": "Great, but didn't Christ mention hell more than anyone else in the Bible" or "Great, but Christ said it was the Great Commandment" or "What about the more difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount about judgement and hell, divorce, etc" or "Paul was accepted by the Body of Christ as both an apostle and a great teacher about Christ"

The Other person: "The Bible was written by men, living in a particular culture, and I just do not accept that God would [send someone to hell, do miracles, etc.]. You "literalists" just do not see the overall beauty and poetry of scripture because you are too concerned with facts - and we know the New Testiment is not historically accurate." or [the point of this post] "There are many other parts to Christian tradition than the Bible as canonized by Constantine in the 4th century"

For those that are personally attracted to the spiritual aspects of the Bible (and not whether it is "real" or not) -- I am in no way diminishing their love of scripture, or the road that led them to Christ. NOT IN THE LEAST. I am talking about folks who toss out - in doing that or otherwise - all the criticisms of the historicity, authorship, etc. of scripture coming from the anti-supernaturalist scholars of the 18th century and beyond (as if that stuff is "just proven"); and imply that anyone who believes that scripture was written by who the 1st and 2nd century church thought it was written by (and believe in the reported miracles by a real Christ and/or God) are hopeless rubes unable to grasp simple modern scholarship and science - hence the inaccurate (and pejorative) "literalist" label. Those criticisms, unproven (and indeed many proven false) undermine - intentionally or not - the authority of scripture; and can place folks who listen in a position to misunderstand the direct teachings of Christ.

I care about that for two reasons:

1. For those seeking to follow Christ: they end up trying to follow not THE Christ but their Christ - the Christ their affections and beliefs are most comfortable following and not the Savior - rich, deep and real - of scripture. It is not the "literalists" who limit God and Christ by demanding that others take the full breadth of revelation into account - "inconsistancies" and all - but those who wish to narrow the scope of God's power and Christ's message.
   
   Modern "scholarship" - taken to it's worst extreme - is the Jesus Seminar voting on what Jesus really said and what he didn't. We do not really get to pick and chose like that in my view; nor do we get to limit Christ to what our modern sensibilities find "reasonable".
   
   There is plenty of scriptural reason to believe that just any belief about Christ is not adequate - that right belief about Christ is important.



2. For those teaching such a Christ and such a view of scripture: they are placing themselves in the direct line of Christ's warning

   Matthew 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.

That should do it for now on that ugly word "literalist"

* * * * *

I have talked a fair amount about the historicity of scripture as well as Biblical authorship, particularly of the pivotal work in this whole argument - the Gospel of John. I have not really outlined what I see as the process of canonization of the New Testament. I see two general views:

• that the canon of scripture was enforced on the Body of Christ from above by the hierarchy in order to drive competing (and possibly legitimate) theological views out of the church; and



• that the canon of scripture developed organically within the Body of Christ - including through those great early theological battles - and that the leadership of the church finally rubber-stamped that view and sealed the canon.

I believe there are some elements of both - but by far and away the second view is how the Canon developed. The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon. My ilk see canonized books - from reading the historical record - having had five questions to survive in order to become part of the canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? In the case of the New Testament, this meant Apostolic authorship
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? The primary Biblical purpose of miracles was to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God.
3. Did the book tell the truth about God?
4. Did the book come with the power of God? This refers to the ability to transform the lives touched by it. The presence of God's transforming power was an indication that God was behind it.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? Despite later discussions about canonization, when a book was recieved, collected, read and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was considered canonical.

In part II, I will examine how this played out in the New Testament canonization process.

Read more!

Scripture and History: Part II

[Part two in the Scripture and History series]

I ended part one by saying this

A history textbook implies that the text was written with the primary purpose of documenting historical fact.

is not what historians do, nor is it what historical texts (or textbooks) present. Certainly, we have to agree on a definition of what a historical work does in order to decide whether the Bible has historical purpose and/or content. In the discussion that started this post I said

every bit of "real history" they read is written through some other theological or ideological lens.

Historical works have a viewpoint, and historians are pretty honest about that. As they examine, organize, and interpret the source documents and facts in order to arrive at the analysis that becomes a work of history - they are aware of their lens. Certainly, they try to have the facts lead them to a conclusion, rather than the other way around - but that is the difference between good history and bad history - and not between it being history and not history. One would only probably have to look at the history of World War II as taught in the Japanese schools and that taught in US schools to see the difference in viewpoint and analysis based on the same facts.

"History is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day. More precisely, history is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity . . . All events that are remembered and preserved in some form is seen as the historical record . . . In German, French, and indeed, most languages of the world other than English, this distinction was never made, and the same word is used to mean both 'history' and 'story' " - Wiki section on History

Nor, are we talking about historical works containing just facts. This is the section on "Social History" from an older edition of Compton's at my house:

Nothing is more fascinating than the true story of how people lived in the past - their houses, food and clothing; how they cultivated their fields, manufactured goods, and traded with their neighbors; their beliefs God and the world of nature; their laws and manner of government; the songs their poets sang, and the beautiful things their artists made. All this is included in the social history taught today.

Obviously at least the Hebrew scriptures are that kind of work. The question is: was it intended to be that kind of work? I would contend that a (not the) major purpose of those who collected and canonized at least the Hebrew Scriptures was to compile and preserve for following generations of Jews just this kind of social history about their culture and religion. So yes, the Hebrew Scriptures are a social history textbook of the Hebrew people prior to about 400 B.C.

Next, as one commenter said and I believe, every historian (pretty much by definition) organizes and interprets their work for their own purposes. It is a Western, and more narrowly modern, idea that those purposes and interpretations must be rationalistic and materialistic - one of those little prejudices that destroys objectivity. So, in looking at the purposes of the history written in the ancient near east, we cannot decide what history is, or is not, based on anachronistically applying our definitions of what constitutes history to the Biblical historians. They wrote history for their people in their time - and it is their purposes that decide what was historiographic and what wasn't.

In the next part, I will look at "Miracles and History" .

Read more!

Scripture and History: Part I

[Part one in the Scripture and History series]

I was challenged to show the evidence that convinced me of this:

Parts of the Bible were indeed written for [the] primary purpose [of documenting historical fact]. Parts of the Gospels were written for that primary purpose - particularly the synoptics.

First, I think it is obvious really: as C.S. Lewis pointed out . . .

In what is already a very old commentary I read that the fourth Gospel is regarded by one school as a 'spiritual romance', 'a poem not a history', to be judged by the same canons as Nathan's parable, the book of Jonah, Paradise Lost 'or, more exactly, Pilgrim's Progress'. After a man has said that, why need one attend to anything else he says about any book in the world? Note that he regards Pilgrim's Progress, a story which professes to be a dream and flaunts its allegorical nature by every single proper name it uses, as the closest parallel. Note that the whole epic panoply of Milton goes for nothing. But even if we leave our the grosser absurdities and keep to Jonah, the insensitiveness is crass - Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical attachments as Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humour. Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable δε νυξ (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind.

It is clear that large parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament but also the New, read "as reportage". The challenge comes in the word "purpose" - particularly when I cranked it up and used the word primary. In reviewing the Bible, there are very few books when the author ever spoke to their purpose in writing the book. Here are a few direct examples:

Deuteronomy 31: 24 When Moses finished writing on a scroll the words of this law in their entirety, 25 he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the Lord’s covenant, 26 “Take this scroll of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. It will remain there as a witness against you,

Now while there was both a theological and prophetic purpose here - the primary purpose was historiograghic: to preserve the event for the future for use by posterity. The book of Deuteronomy follows a historiograghic pattern as well: first, review the last 40 years of history, summarize the laws that laid the foundation of the nation, and look ahead from that to the future. Next on my list:

Luke 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. [this is a reference to the historiograghic purpose of the Jewish scriptures] 3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

This is an historiograghic purpose - and you would expect this to continue in the 2nd half of Luke's work:

Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God.

and then goes on to "compile an account" the Acts of the Apostles after the Pentecost. Then we have John:

John 20:30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Again, while there is a theological purpose, John makes it clear that he has an historiograghic purpose: recording fact so that we may believe. John makes this tie between belief and fact again:

1 John 1:1 This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life – 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). 3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). 4 Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

His purpose is to make his joy complete by passing on what he seen, touched, and heard so that folks could come to know Christ. Again, he was looking for a theological result from his transmission of fact coming from his eyewitness account.

Hopefully, I have accomplished my mission. However, it was a rabbit trail - one that I forced myself down in even bowing a little bit to this definition

A history textbook implies that the text was written with the primary purpose of documenting historical fact.

This is not what historians do, nor is it what historical texts (or even history textbooks) present.

That will be a good place to begin Part II

Read more!

John or The Fourth Evangelist: Part II

[The point of this post is to draw in both Critical and Conservative Bible scholars for, particularly, a discussion of The Gospel of John. I am not such a scholar, and I am posting my view on this - based on the work of others- to kick off that discussion. Certainly, it would be nice to have a good discussion of this here - or an "elsewhere" I am looking to create]

As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

The authenticity and authority of St. John's Gospel form the great battlefield of present N. T. criticism. They had been attacked as early as 1792 by a certain Evanson. The majority of contemporary critics incline to Harnack's view, which is that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Presbyter or the "elder" referred to in a fragment by Papias, and asserted by the Harnackians to be distinct from the Apostle and a disciple of the latter.

I think there are theological reasons for this assault on the authorship of John: as pointed out by the Catholic Encyclopedia article, John is mainly a theological work - not primarily an historical one - and it destroys the modern view that the divinity, and therefore the divine authority, of Jesus is a creation of the post-Apostolic church.

This part of the post will not be comprehensive - I would hope the reader will follow the links to the many much longer articles on the topic. However, I will try to at least deal with Ben's statement quoted in Part I:

I'm willing to concede more room than many of my colleagues for 'apostolic' authorship of many contested NT texts, but it is almost inconceivable (based on internal evidence alone) that, for instance, the Fourth Gospel was written by the Beloved Disciple who was John son of Zebedee.

To draw the distinction very sharply, I think it is almost inconceivable that scholars would discount the universal early church testimony to the authorship of the fourth Gospel by just that son of Zebedee based on the arguments I have seen presented. I offer the following resources for those wishing to investigate the Conservative arguments against the Critical view of John :

• The Introduction to the section on John in B.W. Johnson's New Testament Commentary Vol. III (1886):

  If, then, John did not write the Fourth Gospel, it must have been written about the time he died by a great Unknown, the mightiest mind of the Gospel historians and palmed off on the men who knew John personally and had been educated at his feet as the genuine composition of the last of the apostles. This must have been done so skillfully that no dissenting voice in the Church protested against the fraud!

  This expresses exactly why I hold Critical scholars to a high level of proof if they are going to say the Apostle John's authorship of John is "inconceivable".



• For a discussion of the difference between an anonymous work and a pseudoepigraphic one go here:

  "Until recently, most scholars tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated anonymously and that the present titles were first attached to them about A.D. 125 . . . Now, however, this consensus has been vigorously challenged by Martin Hengel. Hengel examines the practice of book distribution in the ancient world, where titles were necessary to identify a work to which any reference was made . . . Tertullian contends that "a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect ... which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author." Hengel argues that as soon as two or more gospels were publicly read in any one church--a phenomenon that certainly occurred, he thinks, not later than A.D. 100--it would have been necessary to distinguish between them by some such device as a title. The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, he argues, that the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors . . . Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous.

• "Background to the Study of John":

  Views on the authorship, origin, and historicity of the Fourth Gospel have changed drastically over the last century and a half. One hundred fifty years ago, if one had asked a New Testament scholar which of the four gospels gave us the most information about the life and ministry of Jesus, the answer would almost invariably have been, “The Gospel of John.” Today if one asks a typical New Testament scholar the same question, the Gospel of John would be the last choice as a source of information about Jesus (if it was viewed as having anything to say about this topic at all) . . . This state of affairs held sway until only about two decades ago. Things have now begun to change again with regard to views on the Fourth Gospel as a legitimate source for information about Jesus’ life and ministry.

• "Major Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels"
• Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of John
• "The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline"

I will follow this last by Daniel Wallace, primarily, for sake of unity throughout the series: unless otherwise stated it is almost all a direct quote, paraphrase, and/or re-arrangement of Wallace's argument. Since Ben mentioned the internal evidence as adequate (and seemingly overwhelming) to prove the Apostle John was not the book's author, I will focus there (and leave the reader to look at the external evidence in the links on their own).

Internal Evidence of Authorship

Against John's authorship: Wallace traces three areas:

1. the identification of the “beloved disciple,”: Although the identification of the beloved disciple with the apostle John has been alleged as a proof of Johannine authorship, one problem plagues this certitude: would any writer be so arrogant as to identify himself in such a manner?
   • However, not only is ἀγαπάω rather than φιλέω used in this designation (suggesting more of a commendation of the subject than the object), but
   • John, in his old age, might well have adopted an affectionate term given to him by others in this self-description. “Far from it being an evidence of arrogance, as is so often suggested, it may perhaps be regarded as a sign of modesty" -- Guthrie


2. apparent contradictions with the synoptic material: Where John and the synoptics do overlap (only 8-10% of the time), there seem to be inherent contradictions, especially in three areas: the cleansing of the temple, the presentation of dominical sayings, and the chronology of the Lord’s supper.
   • Although John places the temple cleansing early in Jesus’ ministry, there is no necessary chronological indicator in John 2. Thus, John may have moved it forward for theological/motif reasons. Further, there is a good possibility that Jesus cleansed the temple twice
   • Although the Johannine Jesus speaks with a different voice than the synoptic Jesus, only if we assume both that (a) only ipsissima verba constitute authentic dominical sayings and (b) Jesus must speak the same way, regardless of his audience or locale (Galilee in the synoptics, Judea in John especially), does this criticism hold water. In our view, John has indeed hellenized the voice of Jesus for the sake of his largely Gentile audience. But this is not to deny his accuracy, for he basically gives us the ipsissima vox, not the ipsissima verba of Jesus.
   • The Lord’s Supper in John does pose major historical difficulties with the presentation in the first three gospels.
     • Wallace leaves it at saying that there are solutions available which, in the final analysis, may indeed show independence, but not contradiction; and suggests particularly reading H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 76-90; and I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 30-56.
     • Deffinbaugh also dismisses this while giving resourses:

       There are many technical questions involved in the timing of this meal, which are of much interest to scholars, but not of much profit to our exposition. Suffice it to say that John is not really interested in such matters, either. He must have read the Synoptic Gospels before he wrote this Gospel, and yet he did not see it profitable to clarify every apparent discrepancy. For a more careful look into these issues and possible solutions, see D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp. 455-458.

     • Johnson, however, says:

       To the same conclusions the Hebraic style of the book bears testimony. Dr. Ewald, the greatest Hebrew scholar of the nineteenth century, declares “The Greek language of our author bears the strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew who, born among the Jews of the Holy Land, and having grown up among them, had learned the Greek language in later life, but still exhibits in the midst of the whole the spirit and air of his native tongue.”

For John's authorship: Ben implied that the internal evidence runs against the Apostle John writing John; but there is positive internal evidence for his authorship to go with the rebuttals of the evidence against above.

1. Westcott's Concentric Proofs which according to Harris have never been refuted - only ignored.



2. Incidental Evidence:
   • The author uses the historical present more than any other gospel writer (161 times) and in such a way as to indicate vividness of portrayal. One should note the especially heavy use in chapter 4 and the passion narrative. This suggests the vivid recollections of an eyewitness.
   • In 19:35 and 21:24-25 the most natural reading of the text suggests that an eyewitness wrote the gospel. But this has been debated: “advocates of theories of authorship which deny an eyewitness author treat the clear testimony of this verse [21:24] as a redactional device.… By such a method any embarrassing evidence can be disposed of."
   • The beloved disciple shows up with Peter on several occasions; belongs to a group of seven in 21:2 (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others) — and here, he must be one of the last four unnamed disciples; and nowhere in this gospel does John the disciple appear by name (even though he is named twenty times in the synoptics). This strongly infers either that the author of this work was absolutely unaware of John the disciple—a possibility which seems quite remote—or he was John the disciple.
   • Independence from the synoptic tradition coupled with early and widespread acceptance by the church. The fact that over 90% of the material in this gospel is unique to itself, coupled with its early acceptance by the church, argues very strongly that it was authored by some authority. This, coupled with the further fact that John was widely employed in early gnostic circles yet was not thereby abandoned by the orthodox, argues quite compellingly that all quarters recognized its authority. A work not done by an apostle would hardly have met such a reception.

Going back to Johnson's statement quoted above: it will take far more proof than Critical scholars have presented up to now to overwhelm the external proof in the testimony of the early church; and the internal evidence which I think favors John as the author of John. Certainly, his authorship isn't "inconceivable".

Dating the Gospel of John

I am not going to go into this here. I will only state that I agree with John A.T. Robinson that John pre-dates the destruction of Jerusalem - I think it was written before 64 AD; and that John did not have access to the synoptics when he wrote it. There are many arguments on this in most of the quoted pieces and the reader can draw their own conclusion. The one conclusion, however, that I believe is impossible, based on manuscript evidence from 20th century archeology, is that John was written anywhere after the 90's.

Read more!

John or The Fourth Evangelist: Part I

[The point of this post is to draw in both Critical and Conservative Bible scholars for, particularly, a discussion of The Gospel of John. I am not such a scholar, and I am posting my view on this - based on the work of others- to kick off that discussion. Certainly, it would be nice to have a good discussion of this here - or an "elsewhere" I am looking to create]

I have a pet peeve towards folks who ascribe in some degree to Higher Critical views of the Bible. Let me define that as well as I can: I am not talking about textual, or lower, criticism, which is working hard at reconstructing, as much as possible, the original text of the Bible - very necessary and very good. I am talking about the "Higher" Criticism of the last two centuries:

Higher criticism, in particular, focuses on the sources of a document and tries to determine the authorship, date and place of composition of the text.

In particular:

Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German Biblical scholars. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834), the next generation which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808 – 1874) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 – 1872) in the mid-nineteenth century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel and the French rationalists.

Let me make this clear: my pet peeve isn't that folks question the authorship and authority of the Bible: I expect that from materialists and rationalists. It isn't even that folks who consider themselves followers of Christ take up some of the materialist and rationalist pre-suppositions and arguments of Higher Criticism. My pet peeve (its name is Pooky) is about the arrogance/ assumptions of some of those Christian adherents (the non-Christian ones are not the issue here) who seem to believe true scholarship rests in the Critical camp; and that Conservative scholars aren't. Examine these recent comments in threads I have been involved in: First this

Given the currently presumed dates of composition of the canonical gospels, with Mark thought to have been written some 50 years after Jesus's death, and the others somewhat after that, there are many (including me) who feel that in the interest of verisimilitude, it might be more appropriate to refer to the gospels as written by the "Markan" community, the "Matthean" community, the "Lukan" community and (especially) the "Johannine" community, each of whom wrote - rhetorically, as was all current testamentary material of the time - to express their particular understanding of the events the gospels describe, as well as the doctrinal position taken by each of these communities toward those events.

and then this

I'm willing to concede more room than many of my colleagues for 'apostolic' authorship of many contested NT texts, but it is almost inconceivable (based on internal evidence alone) that, for instance, the Fourth Gospel was written by the Beloved Disciple who was John son of Zebedee.

These are only a taste. I have bumped into this same argument, and its variations, many times with assumptions by the makers that this is "just a known fact". The first quote presents these books being written by "communities of believers", or disciples, of these authors long after the event, and the fall of Jerusalem (a very critical event in this discussion). The second quote presents it as being "almost inconceivable based on internal evidence alone" that John was written by the Apostle John. Ben, in an unquoted part of this comment, also implies that all "scholarship" supports this conclusion. However, Conservative scholars find this Critical conception inadequate to overcome the universal, and early, belief in the Apostle John as the author of John. So, are the Critical scholars true scholars and the Conservative scholars some group of anti-intellectual apologists living on beachfront property on DeNile? That is the discussion I want to start.

Dating outside The Gospel of John

First, about that "Mark thought to have been written some 50 years after Jesus's death" comment above: this is important because Mark is generally thought, by both Critical and Conservative scholars, to have been a source available used in writing Matthew and Luke; and perhaps John. So, if Mark wasn't written until the 80's - that pushes everyone else farther back. However, certainly Conservative scholars do not push Mark back that far - the conclusion of this very good review, written by Daniel Wallace of the dating issue (as well as the internal and external evidences of authorship):

In sum, Mark should be dated before the production of Luke’s gospel which we date no later than 62 CE. Sometime in the mid-50s is most probable

So, first we have Mark in the 50's (25ish years after Jesus' death), while Peter (who Mark recorded) was still alive. In scientific support, a piece of Mark was found in Qumran cave #7 - 7q5 - and is dated as pre-70 AD.

Now, Luke is dated by Conservative scholars no later than 62 AD (29 years after Jesus' death); because otherwise its companion work (which it must have proceeded), Acts, would not have mentioned Paul's final imprisonment, but not his death that came as a result. Wallace (from the Acts link below) does not find the two Critical explanations of this satisfactory:

1. He did not want to mention the trial’s outcome. The opinions put forth for this refraine are very numerous—a telling argument against them. Some argue that it would put too much emphasis on the man rather than on his mission; that it would hint at a parallel with the death of Christ, which would be inappropriate; that the readers knew the rest of the story and hence Luke did not need to go on; etc. As Guthrie remarks, “It is not sufficient, on the other hand, to propose a theory of the author’s intention without supplying an adequate motive for the intention, and it may be questioned whether this condition has been fulfilled



2. Luke intended to write a third volume. This was the view of Spitta, Zahn, Ramsey, and W. L. Knox. It is based on the use of πρῶτος in Acts 1:1—a word which, in classical Greek, indicated “first of at least three.” That it does not do so in hellenistic Greek is quite evident from the data supplied in BAGD; further that Luke does not use the superlative as a true superlative is evident from his discussion of the first census of Quirinius in Luke 2:2: scholars have had enough trouble trying to locate two censuses of Quirinius, let alone three! Further, even if Luke did use πρῶτος as a true superlative on occasion, why would he break his three-volume work here? This explanation seems a quite desperate expedient.

All in all, that Acts ends where it does is a great embarrassment to those who do not maintain a pre-64 date. Robinson, who bases much of his Redating the New Testament

[Bishop Robinson, a theological modernist whose "Honest to God" made him controversial within the Anglican communion, began this book as what he labels "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem. As it turned out, he got much further than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack of any predisposition toward a "conservative" point of view. - commenter at Amazon

he wrote in his work . . . that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".]

on an early (62) date of Acts, argues ably for this view. In particular, he points out that Adolph von Harnack, “whose massive scholarship and objectivity of judgment contrast with so many who have come after him,” is still worth quoting precisely because “on this subject he was forced slowly and painfully to change his mind.” Two snippets from Harnack’s The Date of Acts will have to suffice: “Throughout eight whole chapters St. Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St. Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them—they learn nothing of the final result of the trial!” “The more clearly we see that the trial of St. Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does, otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion.”

However, this flies, as does Matthew, in the face of the great underlying pre-supposition of German Higher Criticism: that miracles and prophecies are impossible and therefore Jesus could not have prophesied the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse. In fact, it is this rationalist anti-supernaturalist presupposition that marks Higher Criticism in general; and can be seen in the theology of many scholars of the school generally. Read both "Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument" and its Acts counterpart for a continued discussion of the authorship and dating of Luke and Acts

Of course, if Luke can get away with the Olivet Discourse as prediction, so can Matthew. If you are a Critical scholar who operates under the presupposition that prophecy is impossible, then Matthew cannot. Again, there is scientific support for a pre-temple destruction Matthew: The Magdalen Papyrus (P64) with a piece of Matthew 26 which has been re-dated by new scientific technologies and handwriting analysis to 30-70 AD. Also, the solution to the "Synoptic problem" favored by Wallace in his pieces quoted here is that, while both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark, Matthew and Luke wrote without seeing each other's work - and therefore they believe they were written in the same period of time.

The conclusion is that Mark, Matthew, Luke and Acts were written between 55 ish AD and 62 AD; or the authors intentionally wrote them that way in order to pass them off as pre-destruction texts. This dishonesty would really make them unworthy of authority or reading; but there is no real reason to believe this about them - and no indication that any 1st or 2nd century church father viewed any of them as written by anyone but the Apostle Matthew, the doctor Luke as a companion to Paul, and John Mark as a companion to Peter.

I have looked at the three synoptic Gospels to lay the groundwork for the real point of this post: John - I think the assumptions and mistakes of Critical scholarship are highlighted better in these works because John creates more difficult problems for Conservative scholars.

And, of course, to pet my peeve Pooky. At the end of Part II we will discuss that peeve a bit more.

[Comments, BTW, will be open at the end of Part II only]

Read more!

John Appendix: Westcott's Concentric Proof

I. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew.

1. He is familiar with current Jewish opinions.
   1. Messianic Expectations —1:21, 4:25, 6:14 ff, 7:40 ff, 12:34 ff.
   2. Attitude toward Women —4:27
   3. Importance of religious schools — 7:15
   4. Disparagement of Jews of the Diaspora (Hellenistic Jews) —7:35
   5. Hostility of Jews and Samaritans —4:9
2. He is familiar with Jewish observances, customs, etc.
   1. Ceremonial pollution of entering a gentile court —18:28
   2. Feast of Tabernacles (hinted at) by symbolism of “living water” and the “light of the world”—7:8 and 8:12
   3. The last day of the feast was the “great day”—7:37
   4. Customs at marriage feast —2:1-10
   5. Customs of burial—11:17-44
3. Vocabulary, sentence structure, symmetry and numerical symbolism, expression and arrangement of thoughts are essentially Hebrew. “The source of the imagery of the narrative…is the OT. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew.” (Westcott, Introduction, vii)
4. The Old Testament is the source of the religious life of the author.
   1. Judea was the “home” of the Word become flesh; these people were “his own people”—1:11
   2. Judaism is constantly taken as the starting-point for Christianity.
   1. The writer assumed as axiomatic that Scripture cannot be broken—10:35
   2. That which is written in the prophets is assumed to be true —6:45
   3. OT types are mentioned as Christ applied them to himself:
      1. Serpent —3:14
      2. Manna —6:32
      3. Water from the Rock —7:37 ff., etc.

II. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine.

1. His local knowledge is precise.
   1. Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28), a place forgotten by the time of Origen, is distinguished from Bethany near Jerusalem (11:18). The location of the latter is given as 15 stadia away.
   2. Aenon near Salim (3:23) is not mentioned anywhere else—indicating direct acquaintance of the writer.
   3. Topography —especially of Jerusalem—is precise
      1. The pool at Bethesda—5:2
      2. The pool of Siloam—9:7
      3. The wadi Kidron—18:1
      [Points a. - c. are not mentioned in the Synoptics.]
      4. The Pavement (Gabbatha) with its raised judgement-seat—19:13
      5. Allusions to the Temple:
         1. 46 years in building—2:20
         2. Mention of the Treasury—8:20
         3. Solomon’s Portico—10:22


2. The author’s use of OT quotations shows that he is not dependent on the LXX, and at least suggest he was acquainted with Hebrew:
   1. These agree with both the Hebrew text and LXX, where both agree (Hebrew text and LXX in agreement):
      1. 12:38, cf. Is. 53:1
      2. 19:24, cf. Ps 22:18
      3. 10:34, cf. Ps 82:6
      4. 15:25, cf. Ps 34:19
   2. These agree with the Hebrew text against the LXX:
      1. 19:37, cf. Zach. 12:10
      2. 6:45, cf. Is. 54:13
      3. 13:18, cf. Ps 41:9
   3. This differs from both Hebrew and LXX where they both agree: 2:17, cf. Ps 69:9
   4. These differ from Hebrew and LXX where they do not agree:
      1. 12:14-15, cf. Zech 9:9
      2. 12:40, cf. Is. 6:10
   5. These are free renditions (paraphrases?) of various OT passages:
      1. 19:36, cf. Exod 12:46, Num 9:12
      2. 7:38, no exact OT quote is parallel
      3. 1:23, cf. Is. 40:3
      4. 6:31, cf. Ps 78:24, Exod 16:4, 15
   6. But nowhere does a quotation of the OT in the Fourth Gospel agree with the LXX against the Hebrew text.
3. The author’s doctrine of the Logos is Palestinian and not Alexandrian—he views the Logos as representing the divine Will manifested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Philo, on the other hand, viewed the Logos as abstract divine Reason.
4. Qumran documents have many parallels, which indicate that the Gospel is essentially a Palestinian document. See A. M. Hunter, Expository Times 71(1959/60), 166, 202.

III. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness of the events he describes:

1. Descriptions of persons—in minute detail.
   1. Nicodemus—3:1 ff, 7:50, 19:39
   2. Lazarus—9:1 ff, 12:1 ff
   3. Simon, father of Judas Iscariot—6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 26. Note: The author was aware “Iscariot” was a local or family name; he applies it both to Judas and to his father Simon: 6:71, 13:2, 26, 12:4, 14:22
2. Details of time:
   1. Number of days before the raising of Lazarus—11:6, 17, 39
   2. Duration of Jesus’ stay in Samaria—4:40,43
   3. Specific mention of the hour at which events occurred:
      1. “the tenth”—1:40
      2. “the sixth”—4:6
      3. “the seventh”—4:52
      4. “about the sixth”—19:14
      5. “it was night”—13:30, etc.


3. Details of number:
   1. two disciples of John the Baptist—1:35
   2. six waterpots—2:6
   3. five loaves and two fishes—6:9
   4. twenty-five or thirty stadia—6:19
   5. four soldiers—19:23
   6. two hundred cubits—21:8
   7. two hundred fifty-three fish—21:11
4. Details of manner or circumstance:
   1. The boy had barley loaves—6:9
   2. When Mary poured the ointment, the house was filled with the fragrance—12:3
   3. The branches used at the triumphant entry were palm branches—12:13
   4. Roman soldiers come with the officers of the priests to arrest Jesus—18:3
   5. Jesus’ tunic was seamless—19:23
   6. The facecloth in which Jesus was buried was wrapped and lying in a place by itself—20:7
   7. Peter was grieved because the Lord said to him a third time, “Do you love me?”—21:17

IV. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an Apostle.

1. This is clear from the scope of his descriptions of Jesus’ ministry from the call of the first disciple to the appearances after the resurrection.
2. He is acquainted with the thoughts and feelings of the disciples at critical moments: 2:11, 17, 22; 4:27, 6:19, 60 ff.; 12:16, 13:22, 28, 21:12.
3. He recalls words spoken amont themselves: 4:33, 16:17, 20:25, 21:3,5.
4. He is familiar with the places to which they withdrew for time alone: 11:54, 18:1-2, 20:19.
5. He is acquainted with imperfect or erroneous impressions they received initially: 11:13, 12:16, 13:28, 20:9, 21:4.
6. He stood very near the Lord:
   1. He knew the Lord’s emotions: 11:33, 13:21.
   2. He knew the grounds of the Lord’s actions: 2:24 ff, 4:1, 5:6, 6:15, 7:1, 16:19.
   3. He knew the mind of the Lord in many cases: 6:6, 6:61, 6:64, 13:1,3; 13:11.

V. The author of the Fourth Gospel was the Apostle John.

1. John 21:24 assigns authorship to “the apostle whom Jesus loved.”
2. This disciple is mentioned by this title twice in the passion narrative (13:23, 19:26) and twice afterwards (21:7, 21:20).
3. He is known to the high-priest (18:15).
4. He stands in close relationship with Peter (13:24, 20:2, 21:7).
5. From the list in 21:2 of those present, this disciple must have been one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two other unnamed disciples present.
6. The synoptics present Peter, James and John as standing in a special relationship to Jesus. Peter is eliminated (see 20:21), James was martyred very early (Acts 12:2); this leaves John.

VI. Corroboration:

1. John is not mentioned by name anywhere in the Gospel.
2. While John is not mentioned by name, the author is very particular about defining names in his gospel—he frequently qualifies by using additional names; Simon is never called merely Simon after his call, but always by his full name Simon Peter or the new name Peter. But in spite of this tendency, the author of the Fourth Gospel never refers to the Baptist as John the Baptist (as the synoptics do) but only as “John.”

Read more!