Jesus Myth Theory

[d.thomas]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

[BigRed]

The Gospel according to John shows evidence of being written sometime after 136CE [wouldn't John have been reallllllly old if he wrote the gospel?]
Consider the following passage .....
John 5:1-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes. 3 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [waiting for the moving of the waters; 4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]

Couple of things to notice. Sheep gate was very close to the temple mount, and they brought the lambs for sacrifice to the temple through this gate.
The lambs were washed in this pool.
Now think about what is happening at his pool in John's gospel. Water is stirred...first man into the water gets a cure...everyone else is out of luck. Do these events sound like Jewish practice or does the word PAGAN shout out at you?
The Jewish High Priest would never had allowed this especially so close to the Temple using the pool used to wash lambs.
The 5 Porticoes gives the clue when this incident was invented. The Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), was crushed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian and finally the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem. Hadrian was a follower of the Greek God, Asclepius, whose Temples were marked by 5 porticoes. When Hadrian conquered the Jews in 136CE he built his temple to Asclepius by the sheep gate at the pool of Bethesda. The man who was healed story was a fabrication by a man who was writing after 136 CE when the Asclepius Temple was in full swing healing pagans.

BigRed

[Mithrae]

I am not disputing that Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian all refer to the Gospel of John. To this list we can add Tatian who compiled the Diatessaron c. 170 to 175 CE.

Good point.

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

Only by John (four times, five if you count 1 John also) is Jesus called the 'only-begotten' of the Father, and only by John is he called the Word. So it's very clear that Justin Martyr used John along with the other three gospels.

Firstly, John calls Jesus “the only begotten of the Father� only once, not four or five times. [only begotten god once; only begotten son three times]

Why should we suppose that simply because John and Justin both happen to use the same two words Logos and Monogenēs [three if we include patēr] to/of Jesus, that it should be very clear that Justin used John?

It's a conjunction of two not-very-common ways of describing Jesus, which Justin suggests he got from the 'memoirs' or gospels. He could mean only that the virgin birth came from the memoirs, and if we were supposing that the fourth gospel may not have been in circulation in Justin's day I agree that it wouldn't be a compelling case. But since it's very likely that John was around in Justin's day, that's the only one of the memoirs from which those terms could have come.

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.� ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5 and Matthew 18:3)

The last comment is a little less clear, as Student has noted, because 'kingdom of heaven' is from Matthew's gospel and there is a vaguely similar comment there also. But since we already know that Justin alluded to John's gospel the comment about being 'born again' traces back to John more easily than to Matthew:

Matthew 18:3 - unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.�
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?�
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I have demonstrated, on more than one occasion, that the relative verses only bare comparison in English. All comparisons fail when we examine the relative Greek texts of 1 Apology 61.4 and John 3:3

Justin – “Unless you are born again you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.�
αν μή αναγεννηθητε ο� μή εισελθητε εις τὴν βασιλειαν των ου�ανων

John – “If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God�
�ὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ο� δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

While we might choose to ignore the difference between “entering the kingdom of heaven� and “seeing the kingdom of God�, we cannot ignore how differently each author expresses the idea of being born again. Justin uses the word αναγεννηθητε “be born again�, whereas John uses the more unusual phrase γεννηθη ανωθεν “be born from above�. If Justin was quoting John, why doesn’t he adopt John’s more peculiar idiom?

Put simply the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is, as Marsh and Moody suggest, that while Justin and the author of John shared certain ideas in common, Justin did not explicitly refer to or quote from the gospel of John.

I'd say that 'kingdom of heaven' is the more problematic part of it myself, since that makes a clear connection with Matthew's gospel - but if Justin were quoting from memory, is not particularly unusual. As I highlighted above, while John 3:3 uses "see the kingdom of God," just two verses later we find "enter the kingdom of God" as found in Justin's quote. And while I've acknowledged your point that John uses 'born from above' in my quote of the passage - it's an important point to make - it still is talking about being born a second time (witness Nicodemus' queries), or born again. Once again, that idea is not found in Matthew's gospel or any other 'memoirs' to which Justin might have been referring.

> Would you agree that the use of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Tatian suggests a well-established history of their distribution and use, albeit less clearly referenced prior to Marcion's canon?

> Would you agree that it's clear Justin used Matthew (star in the east, righteousness of Pharisees), Mark (boanerges, memoirs of Peter?) and Luke (sweat like blood, "into your hands I commend my spirit")?

Given those two points, the three peculiarly Johannine ideas which Justin seems to have got from the memoirs/gospels make a very convincing case to my mind, even though he doesn't explicitly cite the "gospel of John."

[Student]

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

Only by John (four times, five if you count 1 John also) is Jesus called the 'only-begotten' of the Father, and only by John is he called the Word. So it's very clear that Justin Martyr used John along with the other three gospels.

Firstly, John calls Jesus “the only begotten of the Father� only once, not four or five times. [only begotten god once; only begotten son three times]

Why should we suppose that simply because John and Justin both happen to use the same two words Logos and Monogenēs [three if we include patēr] to/of Jesus, that it should be very clear that Justin used John?

It's a conjunction of two not-very-common ways of describing Jesus, which Justin suggests he got from the 'memoirs' or gospels.

Precisely where does Justin make such a suggestion, i.e. identifying the “memoirs� as the source of the terms “Logos� and “Monogenēs�?

As far as I am aware Justin does not identify from where he gets the term “Logos�, however he introduces it in the context of Greek philosophy [Logos spermatikos] and the designations he applies to Logos are more akin to the works of Philo.

As for “Monogenēs�, Justin clearly indicates he gets this from the Old Testament "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns,'�. Clearly not a reference to “the memoirs�.

He could mean only that the virgin birth came from the memoirs, and if we were supposing that the fourth gospel may not have been in circulation in Justin's day I agree that it wouldn't be a compelling case. But since it's very likely that John was around in Justin's day, that's the only one of the memoirs from which those terms could have come.

Your logic escapes me.

Firstly, the virgin birth is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. So if Justin derived the term from “the memoirs� it would have been from either Matthew or Luke and not from John. And the existence of Matthew and Luke is not in dispute [at least not by me].

Secondly, unless you can demonstrate specifically where Justin claims to have used the “memoirs� to discover the titles ‘Logos’ and “Monogenēs� there is no indication that Justin knew of and had access to the fourth gospel, or that it was in circulation at that time.

Simply stating that “it’s very likely that John was around in Justin’s day� is simply conjecture and does not constitute evidence.

[Student]

I have demonstrated, on more than one occasion, that the relative verses only bare comparison in English. All comparisons fail when we examine the relative Greek texts of 1 Apology 61.4 and John 3:3

Justin – “Unless you are born again you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.�
αν μή αναγεννηθητε ο� μή εισελθητε εις τὴν βασιλειαν των ου�ανων

John – “If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God�
�ὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ο� δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

While we might choose to ignore the difference between “entering the kingdom of heaven� and “seeing the kingdom of God�, we cannot ignore how differently each author expresses the idea of being born again. Justin uses the word αναγεννηθητε “be born again�, whereas John uses the more unusual phrase γεννηθη ανωθεν “be born from above�. If Justin was quoting John, why doesn’t he adopt John’s more peculiar idiom?

Put simply the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is, as Marsh and Moody suggest, that while Justin and the author of John shared certain ideas in common, Justin did not explicitly refer to or quote from the gospel of John.

I'd say that 'kingdom of heaven' is the more problematic part of it myself, since that makes a clear connection with Matthew's gospel - but if Justin were quoting from memory, is not particularly unusual. As I highlighted above, while John 3:3 uses "see the kingdom of God," just two verses later we find "enter the kingdom of God" as found in Justin's quote. And while I've acknowledged your point that John uses 'born from above' in my quote of the passage - it's an important point to make - it still is talking about being born a second time (witness Nicodemus' queries), or born again. Once again, that idea is not found in Matthew's gospel or any other 'memoirs' to which Justin might have been referring.

That Justin and John express the idea of a spiritual birth, but in markedly different terms, indicates to me that they were sharing a common source of ideas rather than one copying from the other.

John’s expression does not of itself indicate a “second� birth but rather a new spiritual birth, from above, hence Nicodemus misapprehension “how can a man re-enter the womb to be born again?�

Justin’s expression simply means ‘born a second time’; even if he were quoting from memory surely John’s unusual idiom would be far more memorable simply because of its peculiarity.

Furthermore, if Justin was using Matthew as his source for the expression ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ rather than John’s ‘Kingdom of God’, then evidently Justin did not view the concept of second birth in a particularly Johannine context.

[Student]

> Would you agree that the use of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Tatian suggests a well-established history of their distribution and use, albeit less clearly referenced prior to Marcion's canon?

There are citations/allusions to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, prior to Irenaeus, [e.g. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc.] so it is reasonable to assume that they [the Synoptic gospels] were in reasonably wide circulation prior to Irenaeus.

However there are no clear citations from John prior to Irenaeus, so it is impossible to state with any certainty how long it had been in circulation or how widely it was accepted. Irenaeus also makes reference to the Pastoral Epistles and no-one [apart from Wallace] suggests that they were widely in circulation prior to the second half of the second century CE.

In some quarters John was rejected as a Gnostic work, and a work ‘by’ John does appear to have been used by various early Gnostics. However how closely these works resemble the canonical John is a matter of conjecture.

Certainly Tatian used John as the basis of his Diatessaron so it must have been in circulation no later than c. 175 C.E.

> Would you agree that it's clear Justin used Matthew (star in the east, righteousness of Pharisees), Mark (boanerges, memoirs of Peter?) and Luke (sweat like blood, "into your hands I commend my spirit")?

I can’t see what possible relevance this has to Justin’s alleged knowledge, and use of g.John. I’m not questioning the circulation of the Synoptics in the first half of the second century.

Given those two points, the three peculiarly Johannine ideas which Justin seems to have got from the memoirs/gospels make a very convincing case to my mind, even though he doesn't explicitly cite the "gospel of John."

Firstly, I don’t concede either of your previous points, so your third does not, of necessity, follow.

Secondly I note that earlier you wrote that Justin “suggests he got [these ideas] from the 'memoirs' or gospels�. Now you say that he “seems to have got [them] from the memoirs/gospels�. So which is it? Can you identify where Justin writes that these ideas were from the memoirs?

In any case these ideas are not peculiar to John – there is ample evidence for them within Philo.

Moody’s comment remains unanswered:

“At that time [mid second century] Justin Martyr espoused a logos Christology, without citing the Fourth Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation.�

[ndf8th]

Could it not be both?
I find it very likely that
Christ is a myth. But Jesus
can be one or very many that
all of them acted like the text says.

A good evidence is Don Juan
who was supposed to be a real person
but was a myth with three real persons
as a blueprint so the author had not met
either Don Juan which is mythical and
none of the three real persons either.
the author visited Library and learned
about Shamanism from these three Shamans
that scientists had retold what they did
and the Author wrote a text with details
on when he met Don Juan at what place
and the time it took to travel there and
problem with car and how it felt to walk
blindfolded in the Desert and so on.

Most readers thought it had actually happen
as written down.

so it is possible to write myth about three
actual persons that one have never met.
and people really believed in it for years.

Even after the revealing of the fake they
still believed it really had happen.

[Mithrae]

It's a conjunction of two not-very-common ways of describing Jesus, which Justin suggests he got from the 'memoirs' or gospels.

Precisely where does Justin make such a suggestion, i.e. identifying the “memoirs� as the source of the terms “Logos� and “Monogenēs�?

As far as I am aware Justin does not identify from where he gets the term “Logos�, however he introduces it in the context of Greek philosophy [Logos spermatikos] and the designations he applies to Logos are more akin to the works of Philo.

As for “Monogenēs�, Justin clearly indicates he gets this from the Old Testament "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns,'�. Clearly not a reference to “the memoirs�.

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105

From which of the memoirs did Justin learn that the only-begotten of the Father, who was in a peculiar manner Word and Power, became a man? Certainly not from Matthew, Mark or Luke.

I acknowledged that his reference to the memoirs might apply only to the virgin birth, so it's not an indisputable conclusion. However your response seems a less plausible understanding of his comments, since you are attributing circular reasoning to him: He quoted Psalm 22 because it "was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him," so that cannot logically be his reason for supposing that Jesus was in fact this only-begotten one.

He could mean only that the virgin birth came from the memoirs, and if we were supposing that the fourth gospel may not have been in circulation in Justin's day I agree that it wouldn't be a compelling case. But since it's very likely that John was around in Justin's day, that's the only one of the memoirs from which those terms could have come.

Your logic escapes me.

Firstly, the virgin birth is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. So if Justin derived the term from “the memoirs� it would have been from either Matthew or Luke and not from John. And the existence of Matthew and Luke is not in dispute [at least not by me].

Secondly, unless you can demonstrate specifically where Justin claims to have used the “memoirs� to discover the titles ‘Logos’ and “Monogenēs� there is no indication that Justin knew of and had access to the fourth gospel, or that it was in circulation at that time.

Simply stating that “it’s very likely that John was around in Justin’s day� is simply conjecture and does not constitute evidence.

This is ground we've covered before, but you've adopted this dismissive tone without even answering my reasoning and question presented in this very thread.

> We have evidence that John was known and accepted by the gnostics Heracleon (c.170CE) and Ptolemy (c.140-160), and also accepted as equal with Matthew, Mark and Luke by Tatian in Assyria (c170-175), Irenaeus in Lyons (c.180), Clement in Alexandria (c.180-200) and Tertullian in Carthage (208). Such strong and diverse acceptance renders highly improbable the suggestion that it was written in the mid 2nd century.

> Additionally (as we've previously discussed) the appendix's apology for the "beloved disciple's" death and affirmation of Petrine leadership (21:15-23) simply don't make sense unless they were written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, which would strain credulity even in the early 2nd century.

> Furthermore (again previously discussed) the anachronistic comments about Jesus' followers being put out of the synagogue and associated polemic against "the Jews" most likely reflects precisely that; Jewish communities dissociating themselves from Jewish Christians, which would probably be in the 80s or 90s CE as Judaism began to more clearly define itself without its temple.

> And again (which, our readers may or may not be surprised to learn, we have talked about previously) the author of John displays some knowledge of the period of construction work on the temple (19 BCE to c.28 CE, cf John 2:20) which would be remarkable of any mid 2nd century author.

There are counter-arguments of course: That John calls Ananus the high priest during Caiaphas' term of office (though Josephus does the same); that John mentions 'Lake Tiberias,' and the great city Tiberius (founded in the early 1st century) must only have started to lend its name to the Sea of Galilee after the second revolt, not the first; BigRed's comments on the pool of Bethesda (though the verses he relies on are considered later additions, and the pool was perhaps a shrine to Asclepius even in the 1st century BCE)...

Whether or not Justin used the fourth gospel is a question of little importance, and my opinion that he did does indeed somewhat depend on the probability that John was already in growing circulation by the time Justin wrote. If you disagree with that, disagreed that Justin also used the other three canonicals, and disagree that those three key points of comparison (logos, only-begotten and a second birth) associated with Jesus' teaching and the memoirs are of any significance, obviously you'll disagree with my conclusion.

I just thought it worth pointing out - for others' benefit, not for yours or to repeat our previous discussions - that it is a very reasonable conclusion, though as you'd initially suggested not in itself "certain evidence of the Gospel of John before Irenaeus."


Edit to acknowledge that you did answer my questions; I started writing before you'd made your later posts.

[Student]

It's a conjunction of two not-very-common ways of describing Jesus, which Justin suggests he got from the 'memoirs' or gospels.

Precisely where does Justin make such a suggestion, i.e. identifying the “memoirs� as the source of the terms “Logos� and “Monogenēs�?

As far as I am aware Justin does not identify from where he gets the term “Logos�, however he introduces it in the context of Greek philosophy [Logos spermatikos] and the designations he applies to Logos are more akin to the works of Philo.

As for “Monogenēs�, Justin clearly indicates he gets this from the Old Testament "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns,'�. Clearly not a reference to “the memoirs�.

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105

From which of the memoirs did Justin learn that the only-begotten of the Father, who was in a peculiar manner Word and Power, became a man? Certainly not from Matthew, Mark or Luke.

I acknowledged that his reference to the memoirs might apply only to the virgin birth, so it's not an indisputable conclusion. However your response seems a less plausible understanding of his comments, since you are attributing circular reasoning to him: He quoted Psalm 22 because it "was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him," so that cannot logically be his reason for supposing that Jesus was in fact this only-begotten one.

An examination of the Greek text of the relevant passage from Dialogue 105, reveals that there are two sentences of the same grammatical order, joined by a ‘kai’:

Μονογενὴς γὰ� ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατ�ὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος ἰδίως �ξ α�τῦ λόγος καί δ�ναμις γεγενημένος, καί ὔστε�ον ἄνθ�ωπος διά πα�θένου γενόμενος ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων �μάθομεν π�οεδήλωσα

So the passage is comprised of two sentences:
“Only-begotten of the Father of the universe, having been properly begotten from Him as his word and power�

And

“afterwards becoming man by a virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs of the apostles�

Consequently, the reference to the memoirs of the apostles can apply only to “becoming man by a virgin�.

So there is no evidence that Justin used the memoirs in reference to either Logos or Monogenēs.

He could mean only that the virgin birth came from the memoirs, and if we were supposing that the fourth gospel may not have been in circulation in Justin's day I agree that it wouldn't be a compelling case. But since it's very likely that John was around in Justin's day, that's the only one of the memoirs from which those terms could have come.

Your logic escapes me.

Firstly, the virgin birth is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. So if Justin derived the term from “the memoirs� it would have been from either Matthew or Luke and not from John. And the existence of Matthew and Luke is not in dispute [at least not by me].

Secondly, unless you can demonstrate specifically where Justin claims to have used the “memoirs� to discover the titles ‘Logos’ and “Monogenēs� there is no indication that Justin knew of and had access to the fourth gospel, or that it was in circulation at that time.

Simply stating that “it’s very likely that John was around in Justin’s day� is simply conjecture and does not constitute evidence.

This is ground we've covered before, but you've adopted this dismissive tone without even answering my reasoning and question presented in this very thread.

I believe I have provided detailed rebuttals where you have provided proofs; If you feel I have ignored your proofs please show me where and I will respond; If you perceive a dismissive tone please be assured that it is not intended.

> We have evidence that John was known and accepted by the gnostics Heracleon (c.170CE) and Ptolemy (c.140-160), and also accepted as equal with Matthew, Mark and Luke by Tatian in Assyria (c170-175), Irenaeus in Lyons (c.180), Clement in Alexandria (c.180-200) and Tertullian in Carthage (208). Such strong and diverse acceptance renders highly improbable the suggestion that it was written in the mid 2nd century.

If I must answer each and every point that you make then I should point out that, regarding Ptolemy, the only date we can be reasonably sure of is that he was still alive c.180 C.E. There is absolutely no justification for your the dates of 140 C.E. to 160 C.E. other than to insinuate that his commentary on the Prologue to John must have been composed between these dates.

Certainly we have references to a gospel of John from commentators as far apart as Lyon, Carthage, Alexandria and Assyria, with a range of dates from Irenaeus c.180 C.E. to Tertullian c.225 C.E. However it is incorrect to assume from this that the gospel must have been in circulation for a long time to achieve this degree of distribution/acceptance. The evidence from the secular papyri shows that personal documents could travel great distances in a very short period of time e.g. Asia Minor to Alexandria [800 miles] in two months, so it would not be impossible for copies of John to circulate the length and breadth of the Empire in less than a year.

And longevity was not always required for documents to be promoted as authentic e.g. Irenaeus accepted the Pastoral Epistles as authentic even though these cannot have been in circulation much before the middle of the second century.

In any case, while the witnesses might acknowledge the existence of a gospel by John, we have only the barest idea of what each witness’ version might have contained, or how closely they mirrored the eventual canonical gospel.
For example, Ptolemy’s commentary appears only to consider the prologue to John; regarding the Diatessaron, it is difficult to determine whether Tatian used extracanonical gospels or deviating canonical gospels that, because of the early date, had not evolved into the canonical form we know today.

> Additionally (as we've previously discussed) the appendix's apology for the "beloved disciple's" death and affirmation of Petrine leadership (21:15-23) simply don't make sense unless they were written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, which would strain credulity even in the early 2nd century.

I don’t recall discussing these verses with you, or anyone else for that matter! Perhaps you could explain why it should make more sense if it were written shortly after the ‘beloved disciple’s’ death?

> Furthermore (again previously discussed) the anachronistic comments about Jesus' followers being put out of the synagogue and associated polemic against "the Jews" most likely reflects precisely that; Jewish communities dissociating themselves from Jewish Christians, which would probably be in the 80s or 90s CE as Judaism began to more clearly define itself without its temple.

Presumably, in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion, and for several years there-after, those Christians who had previously worshiped in the synagogues would have known that the expulsion only took place long after Jesus’ death. Certainly there would have been a growing antipathy towards their Jewish neighbours at the perceived injustice/slight but the perception, that the situation had prevailed since Jesus’ time, would only be possible when the Christian community was almost entirely composed of people who had never worshipped in the synagogue, or were too young at the time of the expulsion to remember. Consequently the verses could only have been authored, and been accepted as reflecting the truth, after a significant passage of time i.e. many decades after the event.

> And again (which, our readers may or may not be surprised to learn, we have talked about previously) the author of John displays some knowledge of the period of construction work on the temple (19 BCE to c.28 CE, cf John 2:20) which would be remarkable of any mid 2nd century author.

Given that many thousands had laboured on Herod’s reconstruction of the Temple, the scale and duration of the work would have passed into the folk lore of many communities. So it would have been common knowledge that the work started in 19 to 20 BCE and continued for another 80 odd years. Even if the author of John had been unfamiliar with the fine details of the project he could have learnt about it from Josephus (Ant. XV.11; BJ V.5). So it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details of the reconstruction of the Temple.

Whether or not Justin used the fourth gospel is a question of little importance, and my opinion that he did does indeed somewhat depend on the probability that John was already in growing circulation by the time Justin wrote.

It is important in-so-far as Justin is the only possible ‘proof’ that g.John existed in the mid second century. Without Justin there is nothing.

If you disagree with that, disagreed that Justin also used the other three canonicals, and disagree that those three key points of comparison (logos, only-begotten and a second birth) associated with Jesus' teaching and the memoirs are of any significance, obviously you'll disagree with my conclusion.

I don’t recall expressing an opinion on whether or not Justin used the Synoptics. For what it is worth, in my opinion Justin’s “memoirs of the Apostles� is a reference to a harmonisation of the Synoptic gospels i.e. A gospel.

Justin’s references to the Logos and Monogenēs, I believe, are derived from the Old Testament, Philo and Jewish Wisdom literature. His concept of a second ‘spiritual’ birth, appropriated from a developing Jewish and Gentile Gnosticism? Who knows, perhaps the author of John borrowed the idea from Justin?

[Ooberman]

The people who believe the myth that Jesus rose from the dead, was a Demi-God (or Son of God/God) are the true Mythers.

The people who question whether the Bible is accurate history, to whatever degree, are called scholars and critical thinkers.

[Mithrae]

However it is incorrect to assume from this that the gospel must have been in circulation for a long time to achieve this degree of distribution/acceptance. The evidence from the secular papyri shows that personal documents could travel great distances in a very short period of time e.g. Asia Minor to Alexandria [800 miles] in two months, so it would not be impossible for copies of John to circulate the length and breadth of the Empire in less than a year.

And longevity was not always required for documents to be promoted as authentic e.g. Irenaeus accepted the Pastoral Epistles as authentic even though these cannot have been in circulation much before the middle of the second century.

The issue is not simply how far a manuscript could have travelled or whether an individual might be inclined to believe something, but how the work might come to be accepted as authoritative in such diverse sects and locations - from gnostic to orthodox, from Gaul to Assyria and Egypt - in such a short time-frame compared with the synoptics it's ranked alongside.

> Additionally (as we've previously discussed) the appendix's apology for the "beloved disciple's" death and affirmation of Petrine leadership (21:15-23) simply don't make sense unless they were written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, which would strain credulity even in the early 2nd century.

I don’t recall discussing these verses with you, or anyone else for that matter! Perhaps you could explain why it should make more sense if it were written shortly after the ‘beloved disciple’s’ death?

The tradition that Jesus would return soon, and that his hearers would not all die before his return goes back to Paul's epistles and Mark's gospel. John's appendix obviously downplays that expectation, painting it as some kind of misunderstanding. No-one downplays an expectation which does not exist, and that expectation could not have existed in the mid 2nd century. So the passage (which goes on to imply knowledge of the beloved disciple's authorship of the gospel) was most likely written shortly after the alleged disciple's death. We discussed this and these other points in this thread:
Likewise John 21:15-23 only makes sense if someone believed to be the 'beloved disciple' had lived sufficiently long after the others' deaths and after the Jewish Revolt to become the remaining sign and hope of Jesus' expected return. After even he had died, the author of the appendix downplays that failed expectation and reaffirms Petrine leadership of the church.

> Furthermore (again previously discussed) the anachronistic comments about Jesus' followers being put out of the synagogue and associated polemic against "the Jews" most likely reflects precisely that; Jewish communities dissociating themselves from Jewish Christians, which would probably be in the 80s or 90s CE as Judaism began to more clearly define itself without its temple.

Presumably, in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion, and for several years there-after, those Christians who had previously worshiped in the synagogues would have known that the expulsion only took place long after Jesus’ death. Certainly there would have been a growing antipathy towards their Jewish neighbours at the perceived injustice/slight but the perception, that the situation had prevailed since Jesus’ time, would only be possible when the Christian community was almost entirely composed of people who had never worshipped in the synagogue, or were too young at the time of the expulsion to remember. Consequently the verses could only have been authored, and been accepted as reflecting the truth, after a significant passage of time i.e. many decades after the event.

Sure, if we suppose that mid 2nd century Christians were less likely to know that Jesus' disciples continued in the synagogues, and if we suppose that John was written and intended to be read in strictly literal/factual terms. Both very dubious points from where I'm standing; knowledge of Acts or any of the synoptic gospels (or even Paul's epistles) would have confirmed that there was no great ostracism of early Jewish Christians, and those sources became more widely known over time, not less. Similarly the opening verses, long and detailed dialogues and great divergence from the synoptic gospels all suggest that John was neither written nor intended to be read as a strictly literal/factual account. That peculiarities in the stories usually reflect the authors' own time and concerns is a fundamental principle of any literary analysis. It would be very strange to abandon it here.

> And again (which, our readers may or may not be surprised to learn, we have talked about previously) the author of John displays some knowledge of the period of construction work on the temple (19 BCE to c.28 CE, cf John 2:20) which would be remarkable of any mid 2nd century author.

Given that many thousands had laboured on Herod’s reconstruction of the Temple, the scale and duration of the work would have passed into the folk lore of many communities. So it would have been common knowledge that the work started in 19 to 20 BCE and continued for another 80 odd years. Even if the author of John had been unfamiliar with the fine details of the project he could have learnt about it from Josephus (Ant. XV.11; BJ V.5). So it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details of the reconstruction of the Temple.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. How many 2nd century Christians read Antiquities of the Jews all the way through? Why would knowledge of the temple's construction be passed on for two generations after its destruction? I really think you're grasping at straws there. It's possible that a mid 2nd century author might have read when the temple was started and calculated when Jesus was around, but that knowledge is obviously much more likely of someone who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss.


So I reckon there's good reasons to believe that the gospel was written by a Jew believed to be a follower of Jesus, around the period in which rabbinic Judaism was forming and dissociating itself from Jewish Christians.