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

[Flail]

Just as with Steven King, when you come to the supernatural parts you know you are reading fiction...never intended to be taken as literal...it takes indoctrination to do turn fiction into fact.

[Goose]

This would have put the apostle John in his eighties or nineties at the time of it's writing in an age in which the average life expectancy was only about forty five.

To the best of my knowledge, this is an overestimate. A male born in the US in 1900 had a life expectancy of roughly forty-five years. Most estimates that I have seen for New Testament Era Palestine are five to ten years lower than you indicate. At any rate, the idea that any of the apostles would have been alive, let alone writing, circa 95 is a bit of a stretch. Given the gross differences between the Jesus of the synoptics and the Jesus of John, it seems far more reasonable to hypothesize (another) non-eyewitness author.

Though maybe not the norm there certianly exists evidence that people did live to around the age of 100 in the ancient world. In 74AD a census under Vespasian was taken for longevity. From those records Pliny the Elder wrote:

In addition there are the experiences of the last census, held within the last four years [74 AD] by the Emperors Caesar Vespasian, father and son, as Censors. Nor is it necessary to ransack all the records: we will only produce cases from the middle region between the Apennines and the Po. Three persons declared 120 years at Parma and one at Brescello; two at Parma 125; one man at Piacenza and one woman at Faenza 130; Lucius Terentius son of Marcus at Bologna 135; Marcus Aponius 140 and Tertulla 137 at Rimino. In the hills this side of Piacenza is the township of Veleia, where six declared 110 years, four 120, one (Marcus Mucius Felix, son of Marcus, of the Galerian tribe) 150. And, not to delay with further instances in a matter of admitted fact, the census registered in the eighth region of Italy 54 persons of 100 years of age, 14 of 110, 2 of 125, 4 of 130, the same number of 135 or 137 and 3 of 140. [NH 7, 49]

Also Lucian in Long Lives (Macrobii) records some folks that lived to be between 90 and 100 as well.

Not to mention high infant mortality would drag down the bell curve to an average life span of maybe 30-40 years.

At any rate, as you have said, there is no direct evidence that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles, and plenty of evidence which would cast doubt on it.

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

[flitzerbiest]

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

I am reading the thread somewhat differently. I have seen acknowledgement that there is no direct proof that John the apostle wrote John the gospel. On the other hand:

1. There is no positive evidence for Johannine authorship either.
2. The gospel was written in fluent Greek; John the apostle almost certainly spoke Aramaic and was described in the NT as lacking in education.
3. The author does not actually identify himself.
4. The date of the gospel is late for an eyewitness.
5. There are substantive discrepancies between the accounts of "eyewitness John" and "eyewitness Matthew".
6. There are clearer examples of self-attribution (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) that are nevertheless dismissed by Christians.

[Mithrae]

However, it is my opinion that a subjective discomfort with the idea of a disciple's gospel is the main reason behind comments like your earlier "All of the various eyewitness reports that Christians insist exist evaporate when exposed to detailed investigation." That's simply not true - you still haven't provided any real evidence that the gospel wasn't written by the beloved disciple.

"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."

So BEGINS the Gospel of Thomas, a work written at roughly the same time as Gospel John. In it the author identifies himself as the apostle Thomas Didymos. Are we therefore left with no choice but to conclude that it must unconditionally be so because the author has said it was so? Or are there other, larger factors which would cause one to question it? What real evidence might one provide to positively prove that the Gospel WAS NOT written by the apostle Thomas?

There's evidence that the apostle Thomas preached in India, and appears to have been martyred there long before the gospels of John and Thomas were written:

• Catholic Encyclopedia - Now it is certainly a remarkable fact that about the year A.D. 46 a king was reigning over that part of Asia south of Himalayas now represented by Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, and Sind, who bore the name Gondophernes or Guduphara. This we know both from the discovery of coins, some of the Parthian type with Greek legends, others of the Indian types with the legends in an Indian dialect in Kharoshthi characters. Despite sundry minor variations the identity of the name with the Gundafor of the "Acta Thomae" is unmistakable and is hardly disputed. Further we have the evidence of the Takht-i-Bahi inscription, which is dated and which the best specialists accept as establishing the King Gunduphara probably began to reign about A.D. 20 and was still reigning in 46. . . .
  
  On the other hand, though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom. In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh century, and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) ...

The gospel refers to 'James the Just,' a title which Jesus' brother probably only gained after his death in c.62CE, or at best quite late in his life (Paul's epistles call him simply James). Moreover the 'secret' teachings of the gospel, and reference to Thomas' wisdom and learning from Jesus as superior to Peter and Matthew are likely an emphasis on the superiority of the wisdom in the gospel Thomas over the gospels of Mark (c. 65-70CE) and Matthew (c. 70-75):

• 13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
  Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
  Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
  Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
  Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
  And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
  Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

Perhaps most importantly, the earliest claimed reference to the gospel of Thomas comes from Hippolytus of Rome (c. 222-235CE), far away and long after it's believed to have been written. The source for that claim; though in fairness I should note that I can't find that reference in the cited text. However there's another reference to the work around the same time; Origen condemns it as a heterodox gospel. Had the gospel really been written by a disciple of Jesus, it's unthinkable that it would pass with so little notice for nearly 150 years, and receive dubious attention even then. This is in stark contrast to John, quoted as from the memoirs of the apostles by Justin Martyr, who'd lived in the city of its composition a mere 30-40 years after it was written, confirmed as gospel by Irenaeus with reference to Polycarp less than a century after composition and undisputed ever since.

--

Gospel John was written sixty or seventy years after the execution of Jesus in an age without doctors or modern medicine. This would have put the apostle John in his eighties or nineties at the time of it's writing in an age in which the average life expectancy was only about forty five.

Surely you know what the term 'average' means?

• Wikipedia - A remarkable statement mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (c. 250 AD) is the earliest (or at least one of the earliest) references about plausible centenarian longevity given by a scientist, the astronomer Hipparchus of Nicea (c. 185 " c. 120 BC), who, according to the doxographer, was assured that the philosopher Democritus of Abdera (c. 470/460 " c. 370/360 BC) lived 109 years. All other accounts given by the ancients about the age of Democritus appear, without giving any specific age, to agree that the philosopher lived over 100 years. This possibility is likely, given that many ancient Greek philosophers are thought to have lived over the age of 90 (e.g., Xenophanes of Colophon, c. 570/565 " c. 475/470 BC, Pyrrho of Ellis, c. 360 " c. 270 BC, Eratosthenes of Cirene, c. 285 " c. 190 BC, etc.).

Closer to home, Hillel the Elder probably didn't live the full 120 years attributed to him, but presumably did live quite long, and Polycarp was martyred when he was 86. Most particularly, not only is it definitely possible that a disciple of Jesus lived long enough to write it, we have the specific claim, which Irenaeus attributes to Polycarp, that John was still alive and in Ephesus at the time of Cerinthus. You're really trying to weigh mere averages against a specific fragment of ancient testimony?

The Gospel of John is a reasonably well and coherently written piece of work, which has TRADITIONALLY been attributed to an individual who was specifically described as being illiterate.

He was specifically described as being uneducated. The passage in Acts may refer to Peter and John's lack of formal theological instruction, since it's their teaching which is in view rather than their writing ability. Of course being a fisherman, we might infer that he was also illiterate during and following Jesus' ministry, but you're making sloppy use of the evidence to claim that he was specifically described as illiterate.

More to the point, your ongoing reference to this suggests that you do indeed consider it highly improbable that John, as a leader and teacher in the growing church, might have learned to write in the next 50 years. Please provide evidence for this claim.

And in fact there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE at all which specifically ties the Gospel of John to the apostle John. The author simply says at the end of the Gospel "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." Are we left with no choice but to take the author at his word, since certainly there is no possibility one would ever falsify such a claim?

That wasn't written by the gospel author. Once again, your use of the available evidence leaves a lot to be desired. It's almost universally agreed that John 21 was an addition to the main gospel; albeit an early and 'official' addition, since I understand that it appears in all manuscript families. It was added after the death of the beloved disciple - it makes no sense in any other scenario - and provides additional confirmation of the eyewitness claims in 1:14/19:35.

So if I may summarize your 'evidence' that the gospel's claim and the addendum's confirmation are false:
- - The argument from averages, in spite of numerous other ancient examples of longevity, that John's life-span must not have been as long as Polycarp/Irenaeus' testimony suggests
- - The argument from probability (apparently) that in 50-odd years a leader/teacher of the church wouldn't have learned to write, or couldn't have learned to write quite well

At any rate, as you have said, there is no direct evidence that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles, and plenty of evidence which would cast doubt on it.

Yes, if the work's own claim and the confirmation by another author shortly afterwards can be dismissed out of hand, I agree that there is "no direct evidence." For that matter, if we can dismiss out of hand the internal claim and subsequent confirmation, there's "no direct evidence" that Newton wrote Principia Mathematica or Optics.

Tired merely makes poor use of the available evidence; you seem happy to simply dismiss it.

[Mithrae]

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

I am reading the thread somewhat differently. I have seen acknowledgement that there is no direct proof that John the apostle wrote John the gospel. On the other hand:

1. There is no positive evidence for Johannine authorship either.
2. The gospel was written in fluent Greek; John the apostle almost certainly spoke Aramaic and was described in the NT as lacking in education.
3. The author does not actually identify himself.
4. The date of the gospel is late for an eyewitness.
5. There are substantive discrepancies between the accounts of "eyewitness John" and "eyewitness Matthew".
6. There are clearer examples of self-attribution (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) that are nevertheless dismissed by Christians.

1 - Irenaeus/Polycarp positively identifies John as author in opposition to Cerinthus. Perhaps you mean to say that there is no early/strong evidence for Johannine authorship? The criteria for what you would accept as 'strong' evidence is not, obviously, shared by all people, but since there obviously is positive evidence for Johannine authorship it may be wise to choose your terms more carefully. Imprecise thinking and wording can't really help in reaching precise conclusions

2 - This has been done to death. John probably spoke Aramaic, but hailing from Galilee (so close to Herod's capital, the heterogenous Tiberias) he may well have spoken passable Greek too, even during Jesus' ministry. But more to the point, unless you or Tired can provide evidence suggesting that it's significantly improbable for a leader/teacher of the church to have learned Greek writing skills over the course of 50+ years, repitition ad nauseum doesn't count as argument

3 - He only identifies himself as the disciple Jesus loved, agreed

4 - There's specific testimony from Polycarp (via Irenaeus) that John did live that long

5 - That's irrelevant, unless you suppose that Matthew really is an eyewitness account against which we can validly compare John. Since I suspect you don't believe that, I repeat that poor reasoning doesn't exactly help acheive sound results

6 - Are you arguing (here and above) that what Christians accept or dismiss counts as valid evidence in a debate? You and Tired appear to be implying that the gospel of John and the gospel of Thomas cannot or should not be judged on their own merits - that the conclusions drawn from one should be applied (or are somehow valid) to the other. I'm really not sure I follow the reasoning. If your only point is that pseudonymous works exist, I'd appreciate the clarification



Heck, besides the specific eyewitness claims of the gospel itself, probably the key point in the discussion is the confirmation by the author of ch.21. I've yet to see anyone even attempt to discuss that point: Was it written by a different person than the main gospel? Was it written in response to the beloved disciples death? Or is there some other plausible understanding for the chapter?

How anyone can simply ignore the evidence at hand, and argue from the remaining silence, from averages and from unevidenced probabilities is quite beyond me.

[Zzyzx]

.

Though maybe not the norm there certianly exists evidence that people did live to around the age of 100 in the ancient world. In 74AD a census under Vespasian was taken for longevity. From those records Pliny the Elder wrote:

In addition there are the experiences of the last census, held within the last four years [74 AD] by the Emperors Caesar Vespasian, father and son, as Censors. Nor is it necessary to ransack all the records: we will only produce cases from the middle region between the Apennines and the Po. Three persons declared 120 years at Parma and one at Brescello; two at Parma 125; one man at Piacenza and one woman at Faenza 130; Lucius Terentius son of Marcus at Bologna 135; Marcus Aponius 140 and Tertulla 137 at Rimino. In the hills this side of Piacenza is the township of Veleia, where six declared 110 years, four 120, one (Marcus Mucius Felix, son of Marcus, of the Galerian tribe) 150. And, not to delay with further instances in a matter of admitted fact, the census registered in the eighth region of Italy 54 persons of 100 years of age, 14 of 110, 2 of 125, 4 of 130, the same number of 135 or 137 and 3 of 140. [NH 7, 49]

Should we assume that accurate records were actually kept regarding the ages reported? How were ages determined in the censuses mentioned? Did they accept unverified estimates and claims, or did they verify the ages of people reported?

When verifiable ages are considered, the maximum human lifespan appears to be about 115 to 120 years (with modern medical care available).

This is a list of tables of the verified oldest people in world in ordinal rank, such as oldest person or oldest man. A supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records. The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875"1997), who died at age 122 years, 164 days. She met Vincent van Gogh at age 12 or 13.[1] This led to her being noticed by the media in 1985, at age 110. Subsequent investigation found that her life was documented in the records of her native city of Arles beyond reasonable question.[2] More evidence for the Calment case has been produced than for any other supercentenarian case, which makes her case a standard among the oldest people recordholders.[3] This is contrasted with the now-disputed claim of age 120 for the oldest man ever, Shigechiyo Izumi. While this case is still recognized by Guinness World Records,[4] his case is disputed by gerontologist Toshihisa Matsuzaki.[5] The oldest undisputed male is Christian Mortensen, who lived to be 115 years, 252 days.

Since the death of Eugnie Blanchard from Saint Barthlemy, France, on 4 November 2010, the oldest documented living person is 114-year-old Eunice Sanborn of Texas, United States, who was born on 20 July 1896. The oldest living man since the death of Henry Allingham on 18 July 2009 is 114-year-old Walter Breuning, of the United States, who was born on 21 September 1896.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

Of course, "bible ages" are different from real ages.

Here is one Theist's explanation:

This all seems to explain why there is a steady progression of declining ages of men as their distance from the Creation increases. Adam lived 930 years, his son Seth lived 912 years. Lamech was his son, he lived 777 years. Noah was his son, he lived 950 years. Shem was his son, he lived 600 years. Shem's son (Arphaxad) lived 438 years. Arphaxad's son Salah lived 403 years. Jump a few generations to Abraham, he lived 175 years. Skip a few more generations to Moses, he lived 120 years. His age brings us down to the age some people live in our own time. There is a woman living in France today that is 126!

Why the decline in ages? Probably the change in the environment from the beginning to Moses day. There is no reason to believe that there should be a different way of counting Old Testament years.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 430AABMFkP

Here is a "secular" evaluation:

A study of more than 500 individuals claiming to be between 120 and 170 years old revealed that all were in fact under 108 - and most were in their 80s.

In 1959, for example, the famous super-centenarian Vakutia had deserted from the Army in World War I and, with forged documents, had assumed his father's name. He was actually only 78 years old. In many areas it was common practice to assume the identity of one's father or even grandfather to avoid conscription into the army.

Here in the U.S., Charlie Smith was reported to be 137 years old in 1979. In fact, he was 104.

If human beings don't live to 130 or 170, how long do they live?

The oldest reliably documented human life span at present is 122 years, 164 days in the case of Jeanne Calment of France (Feb. 21, 1875 " Aug. 4, 1997). We cannot prove that no one will ever live longer than 122, but there is no conclusive evidence that anyone has.

http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles ... expect.htm

Imagination and exaggeration appear to be human attributes.

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

Many people claim to witness things they do not actually, personally witness. Is there any indication that the author of "John" (whoever he may have been) actually witnessed the accounts of which he wrote?

Saying "You can't prove he didn't" puts one in the same league as leprechaun promoters who can say exactly the same thing.

[Mithrae]

Many people claim to witness things they do not actually, personally witness. Is there any indication that the author of "John" (whoever he may have been) actually witnessed the accounts of which he wrote?

I imagine most readers won't have bothered going back through all the convoluted posts of the thread from earlier this year. But a little history in this discussion is worth mentioning. In his above comment, Zzxyz asks "Is there any indication..." as if blissfully ignorant all the posts made in the past few days, without bothering to respond or acknowledge them in the slightest.

This is not new. And when he is brought around to discussing the obvious indications which I've already highlighted, he adopts the stance of requiring specific standards for such evidence:

• Zzxyz wrote: 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?
  
  Zzxyz later wrote: Lets back up a couple paces and talk about John or the writer of the fourth gospel.
  1. What was his name?
  2. Where did he live?
  3. When did he live (reasonable approximation of date of birth and death)?
  4. When did he write?
  5. With whom did he associate?
  6. Did he know Jesus personally " how can we learn about this from reliable sources?
  7. Did he personally witness the events about which he wrote " and how do we know?
  8. What were his sources of information about things he did not witness?
  9. Were his sources reliable, truthful and accurate?
  10. What was his reputation for truth and accuracy in what he wrote?
  11. What other writings of his can we study? Did he write fiction?
  12. Did he copy from or collude with other bible writers?
  13. Is any wording from different gospels identical or close enough to evidence copying?
  14. Which gospel writers may have copied from which others? Was John a copier?

Anyone interested can read his full posts and my complete replies of course, but since at that stage I didn't want to miss anything he had to say, the discussion does get quite convoluted Eventually, knowing that a great deal of his discussion was based on certain beliefs about the nature of Christian history and the NT canon, I reached the point of listing several of these important claims, which he had specifically made in one post:

• Mithrae wrote: 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?
  
  Please note that I'm trying to pay attention to your specific points, to which ones seem important and which ones less so, rather than simply ignoring all that's gone before and asking "Are you making a claim regarding the fourth gospel? If so what claim do you make?" As you would have guessed at the time, that comment annoyed me somewhat

When asked to substantiate his claims, the fundamental premises behind his general position regarding John (and the NT as a whole) - and with a particular view towards the impossibility of doing so by the standards he set above - Zzxyz did not verify his claims. Far from it; his response was largely abuse and obfuscation:

• Zzxyz wrote: Mithrae,
  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 lets 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)?

And so on. In the end, Zzxyz did not (and I believe, by the terms of evidence he had provided, cannot) provide justification for those fundamental premises behind the views he expresses regarding the gospel of John. His position, in short, is self-defeating and little more than assumption on his part.

If he has changed his views regarding what is required for valid evidence, I would certainly welcome further discussion with him. Until then, I thought it should be noted that I will not further debate this topic with someone (whose primary argument rests on criteria of verification) who resorts to open insults and obfuscation when asked to verify his own claims.

I still look forward to Tired and Flitzer's intelligent replies, of course

[Goose]

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

I am reading the thread somewhat differently. I have seen acknowledgement that there is no direct proof that John the apostle wrote John the gospel.

Granted, there is no direct proof per se. It is an inference founded upon external and internal evidence that the author was the disciple John.

But I don't think that is the main argument in this thread (some people seem to be turning into that as a diversion though). My understanding of the main argument from the author of this thread is that GoJohn internally claims two things:

• 1) to be an eyewitness account and;
  2) the witness was a disciple.

And there doesnt seem to be any direct evidence to refute these claims.


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

Not that I want to derail this thread any further with this diversion but

Though maybe not the norm there certianly exists evidence that people did live to around the age of 100 in the ancient world. In 74AD a census under Vespasian was taken for longevity. From those records Pliny the Elder wrote:

In addition there are the experiences of the last census, held within the last four years [74 AD] by the Emperors Caesar Vespasian, father and son, as Censors. Nor is it necessary to ransack all the records: we will only produce cases from the middle region between the Apennines and the Po. Three persons declared 120 years at Parma and one at Brescello; two at Parma 125; one man at Piacenza and one woman at Faenza 130; Lucius Terentius son of Marcus at Bologna 135; Marcus Aponius 140 and Tertulla 137 at Rimino. In the hills this side of Piacenza is the township of Veleia, where six declared 110 years, four 120, one (Marcus Mucius Felix, son of Marcus, of the Galerian tribe) 150. And, not to delay with further instances in a matter of admitted fact, the census registered in the eighth region of Italy 54 persons of 100 years of age, 14 of 110, 2 of 125, 4 of 130, the same number of 135 or 137 and 3 of 140. [NH 7, 49]

Should we assume that accurate records were actually kept regarding the ages reported?...

Your personal distrust of the Romans ability to keep reasonably accurate records is noted.

When verifiable ages are considered, the maximum human lifespan appears to be about 115 to 120 years (with modern medical care available).

And these ages are relatively consistent with many of the ages reported in the ancient records Ive noted.

Of course, "bible ages" are different from real ages.

I didnt give bible ages. Did you even bother to read it?

Many people claim to witness things they do not actually, personally witness. Is there any indication that the author of "John" (whoever he may have been) actually witnessed the accounts of which he wrote?

Are you calling the author of the GoJohn a liar for claiming to be a witness?

[flitzerbiest]

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

I am reading the thread somewhat differently. I have seen acknowledgement that there is no direct proof that John the apostle wrote John the gospel.

Granted, there is no direct proof per se. It is an inference founded upon external and internal evidence that the author was the disciple John.

But I don't think that is the main argument in this thread (some people seem to be turning into that as a diversion though). My understanding of the main argument from the author of this thread is that GoJohn internally claims two things:

• 1) to be an eyewitness account and;
  2) the witness was a disciple.

And there doesnt seem to be any direct evidence to refute these claims.

Fine. There isn't any compelling evidence one way or the other. If one wants to base one's entire life on the claims of a book, the book probably ought to have a better evidentiary status than that.

[d.thomas]

.




Why are we to assume that an actual Jesus was executed at the time of Pilate when in fact the only 'account' is merely a tall tale written by an unknown author we call Mark whose story was copied and embellished upon by later unknown authors?



.