Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[Goat]

Your claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs doesn't seem very persuasive in that light. Called Christians, their founder-figure was generally called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." If he were to mention the death of Jesus' brother and some others, as leader of the heterodox sect in Jerusalem, how would you expect Josephus to describe it, besides "Jesus who was called Christ"?

Yes, the Christians consider the founder figure 'Christ'. However, the point is the Josephus was NOT Christian, and that "Christ" had a different meaning to him. "Christ" is greek for Moishe, which traditionally in the Jewish culture at that time meant two people. The king, who is anointed in the Temple, and the High Priest, who was anointed in the temple. At the time, the 'king' did not exist, but the office of the high priest did. You have to not only look at who is writing, but who the audience is. The Christians of that time period might understand 'Christ' to be their founder, but you have someone writing for a Roman audience.

Why would you expect him to divert into "highly critical" comments about the offshoot sect?

You misquote me. I said 'HIGHLY CRITICAL OF Messaienic figures'. I said nothing at all about Christianity.

You are right about bar Kohba. I meant Simon Bar Giora.

Point taken, though you actually said he'd be highly critical of the 'king of the Jews.' My initial response to that was factually incorrect, so I removed it on proof-reading But you imply (correctly, as far as I'm aware) that Josephus' highly critical attitude would be directed towards Jewish political or military aspirants. However Christians viewed Jesus not as a political figure, but as a mystic saviour-god. Whatever objections he would have had to Christian belief and practice, Josephus would not (as in the case of Simon bar Giora) have had any particular need to distance himself and Judaism from a political threat to Rome's authority in Palestine.

And yes, I do mean 'King of the Jews'. The messianic figures who were political aspirants were trying to reestablish a 'home grown' king over the Jews, home rule. This was treason against the emperor. Josephus already identified Vespasian as the 'King of the Jews' ... remember the audience...

And my point stands, even given this correction. In a passage about the change of Roman government and, subsequently, the change of Jewish priesthood, the death of James was merely a catalyst - and the reference to Jesus merely the simplest way to identify James and these 'others' he was killed with. Would you truly expect him to shift into highly critical comments about Jesus who was called Christ? The known wording of the passage is a simple, efficient, unbiased way to convey information to his readers. The biggest reasons to suspect alteration to a passage (after manuscript evidence, for which there is none in this case) are that it isn't simple, doesn't flow very well, or betrays some anomalous bias.

Nope,.. your point does not stand at all. That is not the 'best way' to identify James as the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, unless you are a Christian, and Jospehus was not.

And , you don't seem to have responded to the Dougherty points about suspecting why it is an addition. Your avoidance of that information is noted.



The fact that Josephus nowhere else mentions Christians, their religion or their founder doesn't suggest that it's something he wanted to make a big deal out of.

If he was going to refer to a leader of a heterodox sect, how about Jesus bar Joseph?

The passage is about James, who was a leader of the sect; Jesus was the founder of the sect, and is used merely to identify James. Josephus could have said James son of Joseph, but that really wouldn't tell his readers anything, would it? Mentioning his brother not only identifies this James very clearly, it also helps explain why the priests wanted him and these 'others' dead. Calling him James son of Joseph would detract from the meaning of the passage. By contrast, calling him James son of Damneus would make the passage much more understandable, if that were who he'd meant. Though there'd still be the mystery of who these 'others' were and why they were killed in the first place.

Context.. Because he was taking about 'What james'.

Yes, calling him James son of Damneus would be much clearer. A good number of his readers might have heard about the Christian sect, perhaps even that their founder-figure was called Jesus. Saying that James was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ was only confuse them, if that's not what he meant. How many of his readers would even know that Jewish priests were sometimes called the Hebrew equivalent of 'christ'?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be your contention that he identified James as brother of a Jesus who was not yet a 'christ,' when many of his readers might have heard of a different Jesus who was called Christ; yet he never clarifies which Jesus who was called 'christ' he meant, never explains exactly what 'christ' means, nor otherwise makes the connection clear between James and the son of Damneus. Gotta say, that's a pretty convoluted theory. Particularly given that he never calls any other high priest 'christ'!

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10 ... 0reference
Even if the observation about Josephus’ habit is valid, this does not reveal what Josephus may originally have written to identify James. (In a moment I will detail what may be a couple of possibilities.) There is no “certainty� that the identifying phrase as it stands now must have come from Josephus’ pen, for he may have described James by some other reference which was subsequently changed by a Christian copyist. That the latter was the case is suggested by the fact that the second part of the extant phrase is suspiciously identical to the one which concludes Matthew 1:16 (ho legomenos Christos: the one called (the) Christ, though the Josephan phrase is in an oblique case: tou legomenou Christou). The same phrase also appears in John 4:25.

This is enough to put a lot of doubt into the text. The fact that the exact same phrase is used in the Gospels is a strong indication of a link, and a copiers gloss (taking a margin note, and putting into the text) is perfectly reasonable explaination.

As Doherty notes, it's a similar phrase, in a different case. And that is only found once in the bible. It's not a creedal formula, so as to appear specifically Christian in origin. Ultimately, there's only so many ways in which a Jewish historian could refer to the brother of Jesus, and this is pretty much the most simple and obvious, in my opinion. The co-incidence that the author of Matthew used a similar phrase doesn't mean a great deal; indeed the fact that this hypothesised Christian scribe didn't use a more common, creedal identification for Jesus is more unusual than that resemblance.

In fact, having read Doherty's comments on the subject before, I was struck by how not only does he provide no evidence besides this resemblance to a single line from the bible, he in fact theorises some different phrase which Josephus supposedly wrote and was replaced! Replacement of an existing phrase would be even more unlikely than inserting a new one, since the 'original' phrase would show that a marginal note was nothing more than that.

And above all, Doherty doesn't make any comments on the possibility that within 150 years between the original and Origen, two different Christian scribes happened to work on the same 'lineage' of manuscripts for Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, both making mistakes so as to incorporate this new phrase into the text, instead of, for example, working on Paul's letters or the gospels.

----------------------------------

There is no indication that you can or will debate any topic – but simply appear to be “Trolling�, I challenge you to DEBATE in a Closely Moderated Head to Head debate on ANY of the topics below from your list -- other than number 8 which may be overstatement because some people evidently appear to believe that they have had a “religious experience� (or an emotional experience that they attribute to invisible “gods� or unverifiable religious “experience�) as their “reason� for worshiping “gods� and performing rituals.

I care not whether you claim to be Christian, Pseudo-Christian, Non-Christian, Anti-Christian or any other “ism�. I challenge you to debate honorably and fairly on any of the topics on which you question me.

I would particularly delight in debating some of the topics. Pick your “poison� and let’s “have at it� if you are so bold as to try.

And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Do you accept or decline (right out “in front of gods and everybody�)?

You made numerous claims in your post. Those which I considered important to the topic or your argument, I requested evidence for - as you are famous for doing. And instead of providing any evidence, you have accused me of trolling and challenged me to have a head-to-head debate about them?

As you note, your claim in #8 was considerably over-stated at best. #1, #4 and #6 are similarly lacking claims, in my opinion. But since, with the possible exception of #5, the others are all fairly central to your stated views on the topic, it would surely be constructive to get a feel for how you know those things and to what extent they have the influence which you may believe.

Given the extensive list of requirements you require before venturing an opinion on a written text, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 90% of all recorded history simply doesn't have enough evidence for you to make any claims on. How then could you know anything about Christian churchmen selecting and editting manuscripts which became known as the bible? Or, even more absurdly, how could you know about their motivation for doing so (#7)?

When you make such a persistent habit of calling people to task regarding evidence for their claims, it doesn't give a good impression that you seem so reluctant to give evidence for your own.

I have not comment regarding anyone’s personal and private beliefs – that is their business – not mine. However, when they make statements in public, particularly in DEBATE forums, I may question the strange claims that they make.

But when someone questions your claims, you accuse them of trolling. Got it.

Please provide evidence that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible. Please explain what you mean by 'bias' and provide evidence that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias.

I am confident that readers understand (even if you do not) that asking for documentation of items with which you agree or do not doubt is a dishonorable debate tactic. I am accustomed to that tactic – but am not sure that readers have encountered that particular dishonesty.

I don't doubt that amongst Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries a great deal of activity occurred with regard to selecting the texts which were to be regarded as scripture. I don't doubt that in the 4th century, these decisions were finalised and officialised. I do doubt how much 'selection' went on in the 4th century, and how much 'editting' occurred at any time. And I question to what extent any individual's 'bias' influenced the whole process.

So my reasons for asking you to provide evidence are two-fold. Firstly, to establish exactly what extent of 'bias,' 'selection' and 'editting' there is evidence for. And secondly, just as importantly, as you yourself commented:
"Theories or “explanations� are CRITICALLY examined by people other than the originators or their organizations and supporters. Opponents are invited to “poke holes in� (find defects in) theories presented."
The formalisation of the biblical canon seems to be an important part of your process for assessing the reliability of ancient Christian evidence. Moreover, you have listed numerous specific requirements you'd like before offering opinions on any given text (eg. the author's definite identity, biases, track record for accuracy etc.). One can't help but wonder how much of that information is known for your sources regarding the process of formalisation for the biblical canon. Does your evidence for this important part of your scepticism meet your own criteria?

If not, you're doing little more than assuming that such-and-such a formalisation process took place, and on the basis of that assumption, discrediting several distinct sources of evidence for the topic in question. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty just because you don't understand the importance of internal consistency in a viewpoint.

After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire during the fourth century, various committees of churchmen were convened by order of the emperor to consolidate the religion. Those committees were composed of bishops and other officials representing Christianity. They gathered and edited writings and eventually produced a text – the original of which is not available (but copies of which are in existence – the earliest of which (complete but in scattered pieces), the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from late fourth century. Are you aware of this “bible� history? Do you dispute its accuracy?

So what are your sources for all this information?
1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

Or are you all but making assumptions about these committees, consolidation and (above all) editting of the texts?

I see nothing in your argument that ties the name “Jesus� to the legendary “Jesus of Nazareth� of biblical tales. Can you point that out to readers?

Are you aware that the authenticity of Josephus’ Testimonium Falvium is disputed by reputable scholars and theologians?

Perhaps you should re-read my posts then. Goat can see how Josephus' comment about "Jesus who was called Christ" bears a resemblance to the biblical Jesus, even if he argues that it refers to a different Jesus instead. It's strange that you can't see it. Then again, if you haven't spotted the several occasions on which I've stated my views about the TF, it's really not all that surprising. Pretty much along the same vein as not realising what I meant when I said I'm not a Christian.

I mentioned Paul specifically as evidence regarding the existence of James.

Were the names “James� and “Jesus� unknown other than for the bible characters?

Yes, “Paul� mentions meeting “Jesus� in a “VISION�.

Do you propose that the “vision� was real? If so, on what evidence do you promote that “belief�?

...and again. Try to read it again, more slowly this time. I mentioned Paul as evidence regarding the existence of James. James. Not Jesus. James. How can you possibly hope to understand anything about ancient texts, when you can't understand what I've written?

Paul does say that he met James on multiple occasions. That is not hearsay, and your comments here are a strawman.

Can Paul be SHOWN to have known Jesus in person?

James. He met James, not Jesus. James.

James.

The gospel of “Mark� is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name “Mark�, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers.

Please provide evidence for your claims that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers"...

Here we go again. Are you actually and honestly unaware that many scholars and theologians maintain that copying by gospel writers accounts for some of the word-for-word similarity of phrases used in story telling (that seems to defy alternate explanations – except possibly copying from a common source)?

I'm aware that the great majority of scholars and theologians maintain that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. You have claimed, by contrast, that Mark appears to have copied from other writers.

Are you also actually and honestly not aware that the time of writing of gospels is generally considered by credible scholars and theologians to be not earlier than forty or fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus?

I would like to see your evidence for that claim. You don't just accept it on faith, do you?

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings – gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

Please provide evidence for your claim that all the epistles are religious promotional writings. (By the way, in the interests of convenience, I'll put all these claims you've made into a list at the end of my post.)

The term “promote� as I use it is defined as: �to contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of : FURTHER, ENCOURAGE� (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

Writings by bible writers certainly “contribute to the growth, enlargement or prosperity of Christianity. Do they not? Do they fit the definition?

That's a fairly sound definition. It makes your corporate promotional analogy inaccurate of course, since that follows the definition "Advertising; publicity" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promotional).

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views – that tales reinforce one another.

Please provide evidence for your claim that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings.

Religious writings WERE collected by church / government committees. Since they were religious writings (“gospels� and “epistles�, for instance), the religious content was already in place.

Yes, they were collected into a canon of scripture starting from the 2nd century (without government involvement, or any formal commitees). My question is whether you believe that they were collected in order to match certain, previously defined religious views.

When I look at a high school biology textbook, I don't say "Well that was all put together just to reflect the editors' evolutionary views." I recognise that the editors' evolutionary views are based on their belief in the reliability of the theories, experiments and peer-reviewed articles referenced in the book. There were many different sects and variations of Christian belief, and many adherents of them were as interested in religious 'truth' as we are in scientific truth. Was it the case that various people ended up believing some documents to be the best sources of religious 'truth,' and collected those most 'reliable' documents into the canon of scripture?

The bible is the basis for religious beliefs by a claimed 80% of the US population. Is that not correct?

I don't know the statistic off the top of my head, but I'll take your word for it as far as the percentage goes. The bible is a basis for many Americans' religious doctrine and practice, certainly. But your comment was about belief in gods generally, not any specific doctrines and practices associated with a given religion. As you've acknowledged, one significant basis for belief in gods are the spiritual experiences which some people claim to have had. In my opinion, the other two main reasons are indoctrination by parents/society, and simply a sense of the greatness/complexity of the universe and an aversion to believing that it's all some cosmic accident. In my opinion, the ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion you mention are not at all a major basis for belief in gods. It's a minor point stemming from a trivial comment of mine, but it's worth considering whether your views on religious psychology are actually accurate - and if not, how accurate your views on the motivation of ancient scribes, bishops and so are likely to be.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, let’s apply that to the bible tale of “resurrection�. What details might we sort out as being true – and how would we learn their truth?

[blah blah blah] We thus find theories such as the women mistaking the location of the tomb and their grief and/or hallucination giving rise to the resurrection story and perhaps a series of such visions inspiring hope amongst a group in an otherwise overwhelmingly hopeless situation.

I do not accept tales in a storybook as evidence that any dead bodies came back to life after days in the grave. Do you have anything other than tales in storybooks to show that such incredible thing happened?

You simply don't get the point, do you? If you still don't understand that I neither believe nor argue for a resurrection, frankly you really shouldn't be embarrassing yourself by posting here. It was your original question, for crying out loud!

Is it your position that believing such a founder-figure 'may' have existed is reasonable without evidence? Perhaps it's even reasonable to believe that he did exist without evidence? If not, then what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist?

I remind you that you asked the question:
"However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus..."

The question is meaningless unless you define your terms. What would serve as the evidence you request? What hypothetical scenario/s would provide evidence to reasonably justify belief?

Records aside from tales in a storybook, accounts from wide ranging sources, convergence of evidence from impartial (un-involved) parties, verification by people who were NOT followers / believers / religious fanatics, proof that human bodies can return to life after being dead for days.

You require "proof that human bodies can return to life after being dead for days" as "evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist"?

Honestly mate, I'll look forward to your reply but there's not much room for further discussion with you, to be honest. You apparently don't read what I'm writing, you seem unable to grasp simple arguments (or even answers to your own questions) and, above all, you seem completely boxed in by your anti-fundamentalist mindset. Even in a question about the mere existence of Jesus, you seem unable to avoid thinking about the dead returning to life.

Thankyou for the first part of your answer however, and I'll look forward to seeing how those criteria of evidence are applied to your views about the formation of the biblical canon.[/quote]

[Zzyzx]

.

There is no indication that you can or will debate any topic – but simply appear to be “Trolling�, I challenge you to DEBATE in a Closely Moderated Head to Head debate on ANY of the topics below from your list -- other than number 8 which may be overstatement because some people evidently appear to believe that they have had a “religious experience� (or an emotional experience that they attribute to invisible “gods� or unverifiable religious “experience�) as their “reason� for worshiping “gods� and performing rituals.

I care not whether you claim to be Christian, Pseudo-Christian, Non-Christian, Anti-Christian or any other “ism�. I challenge you to debate honorably and fairly on any of the topics on which you question me.

I would particularly delight in debating some of the topics. Pick your “poison� and let’s “have at it� if you are so bold as to try.

And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Do you accept or decline (right out “in front of gods and everybody�)?

You made numerous claims in your post. Those which I considered important to the topic or your argument, I requested evidence for - as you are famous for doing. And instead of providing any evidence, you have accused me of trolling and challenged me to have a head-to-head debate about them?

What might escape the unobservant is that EVERY TIME I ask another person for substantiation I STAND READY to debate the topic. I do NOT ask for evidence to support ideas with which I do not disagree strongly and capably.

Many amateur imitators and people new to debate appear to miss the point, and make the demand WITHOUT actually differing with the statement – but only with an apparent objective of derailing debate with senseless requests for “documentation� regarding points with which they do NOT disagree (and are NOT WILLING to debate).

Here is an extreme example, “You referred to Tuesdays, so provide evidence that Tuesdays exist. Okay, you did that, now show that Thursdays exist because you mentioned them too. NO I will not defend the notion that Tuesdays or Thursdays do not exist. I simply want you to continue to document whatever I question -- over and over -- without any input from me".

So, Mr. Mithrae, if you challenge my statements, I EXPECT you to be willing and ABLE to debate and defend the opposite. When you are NOT willing to do so, I conclude that your “challenge� is shallow and possibly dishonest. I am accustomed to dishonest and deceptive debate tactics by religionists attempting to defend fanciful tales of talking donkeys, dead bodies coming back to life, people living in fish, and “Jesus� appearing in “visions� (on the “road to Damascus�).

When people challenge and RUN, I point out to readers that they have done exactly that – and watch them squirm and make excuses -- then disappear from the thread and from the forum. It happens over and over.

Over the years of debating here, I have encountered MANY Fundamentalists who thought their “challenges� were valid – UNTIL they tried to defend them. Then they stammer around, quote “scripture� to Non-Believers as though it had “universal truth�, and disappear from the thread or from the forum after demeaning themselves and the “religion� they attempt to defend or promote.

Are YOU willing and able to debate ANY of the points you challenge – or do you “shoot and run� as I expect?

Let’s start with the identity of the “gospel writers�, the times (dates) during which they wrote, and whether they personally knew Jesus or are simply writing tales they heard from others.

Can you defend the identity of gospel writers, the years during which they wrote accounts, and that they knew Jesus personally? Of course you cannot – so you will DUCK the questions and DUCK debate. Right? Show readers your true colors.

I ask AGAIN, is there any TOPIC that you feel qualified to debate (other than your disagreement with my style of debate)?

[Mithrae]

Most debaters will probably accept that there is SOME factual, verifiable information contained in bible tales -- about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus" and "god" -- rulers, civilizations, some battles, etc.

However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles -- or even Jesus?

Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional? Mention in tales by storytellers is no assurance that characters in the story actually lived or did as they are purported to have done.

What might escape the unobservant is that EVERY TIME I ask another person for substantiation I STAND READY to debate the topic. I do NOT ask for evidence to support ideas with which I do not disagree strongly and capably.

Many amateur imitators and people new to debate appear to miss the point, and make the demand WITHOUT actually differing with the statement – but only with an apparent objective of derailing debate with senseless requests for “documentation� regarding points with which they do NOT disagree (and are NOT WILLING to debate).

Here is an extreme example, “You referred to Tuesdays, so provide evidence that Tuesdays exist. Okay, you did that, now show that Thursdays exist because you mentioned them too. NO I will not defend the notion that Tuesdays or Thursdays do not exist. I simply want you to continue to document whatever I question -- over and over -- without any input from me".

If I read your claims and your analogy correctly - and since you asked for evidence that Jesus or other biblical characters existed - it appears that you disagree strongly and capably with the idea that these people existed, and stand ready to defend the notion that Jesus or James or Paul did not exist. Is that correct? I'd understand if your comments here were merely spoken in haste.

So, Mr. Mithrae, if you challenge my statements, I EXPECT you to be willing and ABLE to debate and defend the opposite. When you are NOT willing to do so, I conclude that your “challenge� is shallow and possibly dishonest. I am accustomed to dishonest and deceptive debate tactics by religionists attempting to defend fanciful tales of talking donkeys, dead bodies coming back to life, people living in fish, and “Jesus� appearing in “visions� (on the “road to Damascus�).

lol After all that fuss you made over the supposed 'strawman' of me mentioning that "A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived" - you yourself are still sadly trapped in your narrow anti-fundamentalist mindset.

I stated quite clearly that on all of the points I listed, I question the extent to which your claims are accurate - you've over-stated both the facts and their implications. You've chosen not to provide evidence for them, so by your stated terms of 'honourable debate' you are obliged to withdraw them; not accuse the questioner of trolling, challenge them to a head-to-head debate and bring out your insults and claims of dishonesty if they don't instantly bow to your demand.

And just as importantly, it seems all but certain that none of your claims can be supported by the terms of evidence which you yourself have laid down. To whit:

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

Before I express an opinion regarding claims made I ask:
1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

Since there are no original texts from ancient times, by your terms of evidence you can never know who wrote something or what changes might have been made between copies, and hence will know even less about their record of accuracy or their sources of information.

By your terms of evidence, everything you've said about the formalisation of the biblical canon is guess-work just as much as the identity of the beloved disciple who wrote the fourth gospel. You're not a stupid person, so I'm fairly confident that you know this and fully understand my reasons for asking. That's exactly why you're getting so angry and offensive, by my guess.

But since in your most recent post you haven't even tried to provide evidence for your claims, or discuss the topic/s in question, I think this'll be all between us for now. Despite occasional frustration, it has been fun working the old cranial muscles a bit - perhaps we'll be able to make some headway if in the future we happen to discuss a topic you don't feel so strongly about

-------------------

And yes, I do mean 'King of the Jews'. The messianic figures who were political aspirants were trying to reestablish a 'home grown' king over the Jews, home rule. This was treason against the emperor. Josephus already identified Vespasian as the 'King of the Jews' ... remember the audience...

Agreed - so assuming you don't consider that Jesus was a political aspirant in the late 1st century, does it hold true that Josephus would necessarily show the same hostility as he shows to the military/political 'messiahs' he elsewhere mentions?

Nope,.. your point does not stand at all. That is not the 'best way' to identify James as the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, unless you are a Christian, and Jospehus was not.

Not to split hairs, but I said it was the simplest way, and highly efficient. Calling him "James son of Joseph" would mean nothing to his audience. Calling him the brother of Jesus who was called Christ would identify him to many readers, and for that matter help explain why the priests may have wanted him dead. In your view, would merely mentioning that Jesus was called Christ make Josephus un-Jewish or pro-Christian? If not, then "unless you are a Christian" really isn't an issue.

And , you don't seem to have responded to the Dougherty points about suspecting why it is an addition. Your avoidance of that information is noted.

I did respond. Please read again:

As Doherty notes, it's a similar phrase, in a different case. And that is only found once in the bible [added; twice, but in John it's not talking about Jesus]. It's not a creedal formula, so as to appear specifically Christian in origin. Ultimately, there's only so many ways in which a Jewish historian could refer to the brother of Jesus, and this is pretty much the most simple and obvious, in my opinion. The co-incidence that the author of Matthew used a similar phrase doesn't mean a great deal; indeed the fact that this hypothesised Christian scribe didn't use a more common, creedal identification for Jesus is more unusual than that resemblance.

In fact, having read Doherty's comments on the subject before, I was struck by how not only does he provide no evidence besides this resemblance to a single line from the bible, he in fact theorises some different phrase which Josephus supposedly wrote and was replaced! Replacement of an existing phrase would be even more unlikely than inserting a new one, since the 'original' phrase would show that a marginal note was nothing more than that.

And above all, Doherty doesn't make any comments on the possibility that within 150 years between the original and Origen, two different Christian scribes happened to work on the same 'lineage' of manuscripts for Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, both making mistakes so as to incorporate this new phrase into the text, instead of, for example, working on Paul's letters or the gospels.

ho legomenos Christos
tou legomenou Christou

Two words which qualify the description as 'Christ.' Two words. And on one single occasion, they refer to Jesus in the bible. One single occasion. Christians usually described him as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or just Christ; not "the one called (the)Christ."

The phrase is quoted three times by Origen (in two of his works, from memory), less than 150 years after the time of writing. [Edit: given a little time, two of the references are On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15 and Against Celsus, 1:47 - fairly sure there's a third, but that should suffice.] The relative frequency of ancient NT manuscripts compared to other ancient works suggests that many copies of them were made by the Christian community. And even absent that evidence, it would seem reasonable to assume that most Christian scribes would involve themselves with making copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles, rather than Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

It would seem that the chances of a Christian scribe inserting a marginal note wouldn't be great in the first place; and even given the opportunity and inclination, "the one called the Christ" probably wouldn't be the first phrase to spring to mind; and even then, we must assume another scribe (presumably Christian) who added it into the actual text. Without reference to a christ, "James brother of Jesus" would be strange and meaningless; hence Doherty's theory of some original phrase instead. But then, to actually replace a phrase already in the text, one of our hypothetical Christian scribes would be fraudulent. Far from a simple mistake, we'd have to believe that instead of adding some Christian testimony, our Christian forger simply made a neutral comment about the title used for Jesus.

Given that there's no manuscript evidence suggesting the passage was altered, you and Doherty seem to be putting an awful lot of emphasis on those two words as 'evidence' for a rather unlikely scenario.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Of course you cannot – so you will DUCK the questions and DUCK debate. Right? Show readers your true colors.

you yourself are still sadly trapped in your narrow anti-fundamentalist mindset.

This seems to have gotten more than a bit heated. Please remember to take a breath, and to keep opinions about other posters to yourself.

[Goat]

Most debaters will probably accept that there is SOME factual, verifiable information contained in bible tales -- about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus" and "god" -- rulers, civilizations, some battles, etc.

However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles -- or even Jesus?

Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional? Mention in tales by storytellers is no assurance that characters in the story actually lived or did as they are purported to have done.

What might escape the unobservant is that EVERY TIME I ask another person for substantiation I STAND READY to debate the topic. I do NOT ask for evidence to support ideas with which I do not disagree strongly and capably.

Many amateur imitators and people new to debate appear to miss the point, and make the demand WITHOUT actually differing with the statement – but only with an apparent objective of derailing debate with senseless requests for “documentation� regarding points with which they do NOT disagree (and are NOT WILLING to debate).

Here is an extreme example, “You referred to Tuesdays, so provide evidence that Tuesdays exist. Okay, you did that, now show that Thursdays exist because you mentioned them too. NO I will not defend the notion that Tuesdays or Thursdays do not exist. I simply want you to continue to document whatever I question -- over and over -- without any input from me".

If I read your claims and your analogy correctly - and since you asked for evidence that Jesus or other biblical characters existed - it appears that you disagree strongly and capably with the idea that these people existed, and stand ready to defend the notion that Jesus or James or Paul did not exist. Is that correct? I'd understand if your comments here were merely spoken in haste.

So, Mr. Mithrae, if you challenge my statements, I EXPECT you to be willing and ABLE to debate and defend the opposite. When you are NOT willing to do so, I conclude that your “challenge� is shallow and possibly dishonest. I am accustomed to dishonest and deceptive debate tactics by religionists attempting to defend fanciful tales of talking donkeys, dead bodies coming back to life, people living in fish, and “Jesus� appearing in “visions� (on the “road to Damascus�).

lol After all that fuss you made over the supposed 'strawman' of me mentioning that "A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived" - you yourself are still sadly trapped in your narrow anti-fundamentalist mindset.

I stated quite clearly that on all of the points I listed, I question the extent to which your claims are accurate - you've over-stated both the facts and their implications. You've chosen not to provide evidence for them, so by your stated terms of 'honourable debate' you are obliged to withdraw them; not accuse the questioner of trolling, challenge them to a head-to-head debate and bring out your insults and claims of dishonesty if they don't instantly bow to your demand.

And just as importantly, it seems all but certain that none of your claims can be supported by the terms of evidence which you yourself have laid down. To whit:

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

Before I express an opinion regarding claims made I ask:
1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

Since there are no original texts from ancient times, by your terms of evidence you can never know who wrote something or what changes might have been made between copies, and hence will know even less about their record of accuracy or their sources of information.

By your terms of evidence, everything you've said about the formalisation of the biblical canon is guess-work just as much as the identity of the beloved disciple who wrote the fourth gospel. You're not a stupid person, so I'm fairly confident that you know this and fully understand my reasons for asking. That's exactly why you're getting so angry and offensive, by my guess.

But since in your most recent post you haven't even tried to provide evidence for your claims, or discuss the topic/s in question, I think this'll be all between us for now. Despite occasional frustration, it has been fun working the old cranial muscles a bit - perhaps we'll be able to make some headway if in the future we happen to discuss a topic you don't feel so strongly about

-------------------

And yes, I do mean 'King of the Jews'. The messianic figures who were political aspirants were trying to reestablish a 'home grown' king over the Jews, home rule. This was treason against the emperor. Josephus already identified Vespasian as the 'King of the Jews' ... remember the audience...

Agreed - so assuming you don't consider that Jesus was a political aspirant in the late 1st century, does it hold true that Josephus would necessarily show the same hostility as he shows to the military/political 'messiahs' he elsewhere mentions?

Nope,.. your point does not stand at all. That is not the 'best way' to identify James as the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, unless you are a Christian, and Jospehus was not.

Not to split hairs, but I said it was the simplest way, and highly efficient. Calling him "James son of Joseph" would mean nothing to his audience. Calling him the brother of Jesus who was called Christ would identify him to many readers, and for that matter help explain why the priests may have wanted him dead. In your view, would merely mentioning that Jesus was called Christ make Josephus un-Jewish or pro-Christian? If not, then "unless you are a Christian" really isn't an issue.

And , you don't seem to have responded to the Dougherty points about suspecting why it is an addition. Your avoidance of that information is noted.

I did respond. Please read again:

As Doherty notes, it's a similar phrase, in a different case. And that is only found once in the bible [added; twice, but in John it's not talking about Jesus]. It's not a creedal formula, so as to appear specifically Christian in origin. Ultimately, there's only so many ways in which a Jewish historian could refer to the brother of Jesus, and this is pretty much the most simple and obvious, in my opinion. The co-incidence that the author of Matthew used a similar phrase doesn't mean a great deal; indeed the fact that this hypothesised Christian scribe didn't use a more common, creedal identification for Jesus is more unusual than that resemblance.

In fact, having read Doherty's comments on the subject before, I was struck by how not only does he provide no evidence besides this resemblance to a single line from the bible, he in fact theorises some different phrase which Josephus supposedly wrote and was replaced! Replacement of an existing phrase would be even more unlikely than inserting a new one, since the 'original' phrase would show that a marginal note was nothing more than that.

And above all, Doherty doesn't make any comments on the possibility that within 150 years between the original and Origen, two different Christian scribes happened to work on the same 'lineage' of manuscripts for Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, both making mistakes so as to incorporate this new phrase into the text, instead of, for example, working on Paul's letters or the gospels.

ho legomenos Christos
tou legomenou Christou

Two words which qualify the description as 'Christ.' Two words. And on one single occasion, they refer to Jesus in the bible. One single occasion. Christians usually described him as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or just Christ; not "the one called (the)Christ."

The phrase is quoted three times by Origen (in two of his works, from memory), less than 150 years after the time of writing. [Edit: given a little time, two of the references are On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15 and Against Celsus, 1:47 - fairly sure there's a third, but that should suffice.] The relative frequency of ancient NT manuscripts compared to other ancient works suggests that many copies of them were made by the Christian community. And even absent that evidence, it would seem reasonable to assume that most Christian scribes would involve themselves with making copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles, rather than Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

It would seem that the chances of a Christian scribe inserting a marginal note wouldn't be great in the first place; and even given the opportunity and inclination, "the one called the Christ" probably wouldn't be the first phrase to spring to mind; and even then, we must assume another scribe (presumably Christian) who added it into the actual text. Without reference to a christ, "James brother of Jesus" would be strange and meaningless; hence Doherty's theory of some original phrase instead. But then, to actually replace a phrase already in the text, one of our hypothetical Christian scribes would be fraudulent. Far from a simple mistake, we'd have to believe that instead of adding some Christian testimony, our Christian forger simply made a neutral comment about the title used for Jesus.

Given that there's no manuscript evidence suggesting the passage was altered, you and Doherty seem to be putting an awful lot of emphasis on those two words as 'evidence' for a rather unlikely scenario.

So, one is latin, the other is greek, yet, it is word for word (considering the two different langauges, the same.

Denial of the point does not refute it.

[Mithrae]

So, one is latin, the other is greek, yet, it is word for word (considering the two different langauges, the same.

Denial of the point does not refute it.

They're both in Greek. The passage you quoted from Doherty says that the phrase in Josephus is in the oblique case. But grammar isn't my strong point even in English, never mind Greek, so don't ask me what that means

It's still only two words though.

Anyway, I imagine we can both agree that discussion of that passage has been pretty much exhausted by now, so I'm sure any interested readers will have made up their minds which viewpoint seems more persuasive.



To be honest by this point I'm half inclined to go back to WoW, having got enough mental stimulation to last me for another year or two But since I started the topic, and it's about the gospel of John rather than the individual's specific criteria for evidence or Josephus' reference to James, I should probably bring that up again.

Any further comments, from anyone, about the authorship of the fourth gospel? Is there any reason to believe the person who added the last chapter to the gospel was incorrect or lying when he wrote John 21:24?

23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?�
24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

[Cathar1950]

As for anti-semitism, see my comments to Goat. The gospel states clearly that Jesus was a Jew, that his disciples were Jews, that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death, that Mary, Martha and Lazarus were Jews... indeed, that the beloved disciple and supposed author of the work was, in fact, a Jew. 'Virulent antisemitism' seems more of a modern catch-phrase than an accurate description for the themes encompassed by a work which seeks to exonerate its Gentile audience from any blame, describe opposition from the Jewish leadership and perhaps help explain the calamity which had befallen the nation not so long before.


John is a work of theology and evangelism of course; the fact that it's not an historical work is blatantly obvious from the first few verses. And as such, as far as 'historical' Jesus studies go, preference for Mark or Q is understandable. And it's possible that the claims to have witnessed Jesus' life and death are false, and even possible that the appended chapter could make sense in such a scenario. But I have yet to see how that's the case and, all questions of possible implications aside, as far as I can see it the evidence seems to suggest that not all of Jesus' followers took their experience of his life to their grave.

According to the gospel of John they didn't have passover before his death and it is only the other gospels following Mark "that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death" as in John he is the main coarse and killed on the day of preparation for the Passover.
I am pretty sure all of the disciples took their gospels to their graves.

[Mithrae]

As for anti-semitism, see my comments to Goat. The gospel states clearly that Jesus was a Jew, that his disciples were Jews, that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death, that Mary, Martha and Lazarus were Jews... indeed, that the beloved disciple and supposed author of the work was, in fact, a Jew. 'Virulent antisemitism' seems more of a modern catch-phrase than an accurate description for the themes encompassed by a work which seeks to exonerate its Gentile audience from any blame, describe opposition from the Jewish leadership and perhaps help explain the calamity which had befallen the nation not so long before.

John is a work of theology and evangelism of course; the fact that it's not an historical work is blatantly obvious from the first few verses. And as such, as far as 'historical' Jesus studies go, preference for Mark or Q is understandable. And it's possible that the claims to have witnessed Jesus' life and death are false, and even possible that the appended chapter could make sense in such a scenario. But I have yet to see how that's the case and, all questions of possible implications aside, as far as I can see it the evidence seems to suggest that not all of Jesus' followers took their experience of his life to their grave.

According to the gospel of John they didn't have passover before his death and it is only the other gospels following Mark "that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death" as in John he is the main coarse and killed on the day of preparation for the Passover.
I am pretty sure all of the disciples took their gospels to their graves.

Well yes, obviously they all died Point taken regarding John's chronology for Passover, but it does get mentioned and it's hard to imagine that a work with a Jewish hero and supposedly written by a Jew can be accurately described as 'virulently antisemitic.'

[Cathar1950]

As for anti-semitism, see my comments to Goat. The gospel states clearly that Jesus was a Jew, that his disciples were Jews, that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death, that Mary, Martha and Lazarus were Jews... indeed, that the beloved disciple and supposed author of the work was, in fact, a Jew. 'Virulent antisemitism' seems more of a modern catch-phrase than an accurate description for the themes encompassed by a work which seeks to exonerate its Gentile audience from any blame, describe opposition from the Jewish leadership and perhaps help explain the calamity which had befallen the nation not so long before.

John is a work of theology and evangelism of course; the fact that it's not an historical work is blatantly obvious from the first few verses. And as such, as far as 'historical' Jesus studies go, preference for Mark or Q is understandable. And it's possible that the claims to have witnessed Jesus' life and death are false, and even possible that the appended chapter could make sense in such a scenario. But I have yet to see how that's the case and, all questions of possible implications aside, as far as I can see it the evidence seems to suggest that not all of Jesus' followers took their experience of his life to their grave.

According to the gospel of John they didn't have passover before his death and it is only the other gospels following Mark "that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death" as in John he is the main coarse and killed on the day of preparation for the Passover.
I am pretty sure all of the disciples took their gospels to their graves.

Well yes, obviously they all died Point taken regarding John's chronology for Passover, but it does get mentioned and it's hard to imagine that a work with a Jewish hero and supposedly written by a Jew can be accurately described as 'virulently antisemitic.'

They were more anti-Jewish, especially Jewish leaders which competed with them at the end of the second century after the war. Except for he Roman backed Jewish leadership and Herod the Jews didn't seem to have that much problem with Jewish Christians and they were pro Jewish.

[Mithrae]

Responding to Tired's comments here.

The Gospel of John itself, like all four of the canonic Gospels, was written anonymously. But that does not mean that the author has not identified himself.

2John.1
"[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;"

3John.1
"[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth."

The apostle John was described as being a simple illiterate man if you will recall. Yet in both 2 John and 3 John we find two beautifully written letters in Greek, and in both the author clearly identifies himself is "the elder," and NOT "the evangelist."

Modern criticism is nearly unanimous in the conclusion that 2 John and 3 John were written by the same hand that wrote The Gospel of John.

At a glance I haven't been able to find any source for the claim that modern criticism is 'nearly unanimous' regarding that point - in fact from what I've read the relationship between the gospel and the epistles is very much in dispute. That said, there are some obvious points that the average reader can see for themselves:
-- 2 and 3 John, as you've mentioned, identify as being written by 'the elder,' unlike 1 John. At face value, it would seem they were not written by the same author
-- 1 John shares a great deal with the gospel of John in both style and themes. Any reader can see this, and at face value it would seem likely that they were written by the same author

This is not a point of certainty, but as far as textual criticism goes, the comparison between the gospel and 1st epistle would in the same ballpark as the comparisons between Paul's epistles, if not even stronger. Just a few examples, starting right from the beginning of both gospel and epistle...

1 John
1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

Gospel of John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. . . . 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 John
1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Gospel of John
1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

1 John
1:4 We write this to make our joy complete.

Gospel of John
3:29 That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
15:11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.

1 John
4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
5:6 And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

Gospel of John
14:16 ...he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.
15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.
16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
18:37 In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

- - -

"John was reportedly illiterate, virtually precluding him from having written the gospel. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary."[Ac. 4:13] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus." (Wikipedia; Gospel of John).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

It's worth noting that arguing that the apostle John didn't write it isn't the same as arguing that the Beloved Disciple didn't write it. As previously mentioned, the gospel and epistle were written anonymously: But they both claim to have been written by an eyewitness (1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 19:35 - and note especially the grammar/phrasing contrast with 21:24, by a later author), and that later addition specifically states that it was the beloved disciple who wrote it. John is probably the best candidate, but that's a matter of church history/tradition and educated guesswork.

That said, what we know about John is that he was an uneducated former fisherman in the early years after Jesus' death. This suggests (though it's not explicit) that he couldn't even write at that stage. But it seems strange to assume that in the 50+ years that followed, in his role as a leader and teacher of the church, he couldn't have learned to write, even to write quite well. There would have been plenty of people who could have taught him, I'm sure, plenty of time in which to learn and a fairly strong motivation to do so as well. That argument seems weak at best.

"Many modern critics belive that the tradition of the name and the composition of Ephisus around 100 are best preserved by attributing the Gospel not to the apostle but to John the Elder, mentioned by Papias."
(Dictionary of the Bible).

Unfortunately, John the Elder was not a disciple of Jesus. However church tradition (from Irenaeus) does have the apostle John residing in Ephesus, to counter the teachings of Cerinthus.

The most interesting point in this whole discussion, to my mind, is that John 21 only makes sense as an attempt to offset disappointment following the beloved disciple's death. Belief that Christ would come 'soon,' 'within this generation' and in the lives of 'some standing here' was common in the early church. As the apostles began to die, and particularly after the first Jewish revolt came and went, this hope would begin to wane - but the death of the last disciple would be a particularly poignant reminder of false hope. I doubt there's any credible scholar who interprets John 21:22-23 as anything other than an attempt to offset that lost hope; but that only makes sense if the beloved disciple had recently died.

And the author of that chapter explicitly stated that the beloved disciple had written the gospel.

Paul considered himself to be a witness to the risen Jesus as well. This despite the fact that Paul entrance into the story was some years after Jesus was executed and Paul was not a personal witness to any of the events depicted in the Gospels. Making claims with exceed the scope of the literal truth is a part of human nature.

There's every likelihood that, as a devout Jew, Paul was in Jerusalem during the Passover on which Jesus was crucified. However he doesn't claim to have personally met or been a follower of Jesus, and even regarding his vision of Jesus he makes a clear distinction between himself and the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Whether or not you believe Paul had some kind of vision or spiritual revelation, I don't think you could make a case that he made any demonstrably untrue claims in that regard.

Nor would it be relevant even if he had. As far as I have yet seen, the only genuine reason to really question that the gospel was written by the beloved disciple, as the author of ch.21 says, is that he would have been in his late 70s or early 80s by the time it was written. But while unusual in those days, that's hardly unique - some philosphers are even recorded to have lived into their 90s! The wide opposition to 'Johannine' (assuming he was the beloved disciple) authorship seems, to my mind, little more than a hangover from the absurdly radical criticism/speculation of the 19th century dating the book in the mid- to late-2nd century. With those theories laid to rest, I find it strange that any objective assessment could so easily dismiss as irrelevant the claims both within the gospel and by the author of ch.21 that it was written by a follower.