The virgin

DelphicRaven
DelphicRaven's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
The virgin

I read somewhere (I can't seem to remember where.. alas I have read too much) that the word "virgin" (as in Virgin Mary) was actually a mis-translation from a word that actually just meant "woman". Does anyone know anything about that?

 --Sarah--

Prayer: How to do nothing and feel like your doing something.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
AFAIK What happened was in

AFAIK What happened was in the original Hebrew, the Old Testament said the messiah would be born of a young woman, but in the Greek Septuagint, young woman was translated as a word that meant virgin (I imagine they used παρθένος (parthenos) but I don't have a Septuagint, so I can't be sure).

I did some quick searching through the gospels, and it seems that Mark, the earliest gospel suggests that Jesus was not born of a virgin:

"Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" - Mark 7:42

While the later gospels Matthew and Luke clearly state that Mary was a virgin:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." - Matthew 1:23-25 (the interesting thing about this verse, is that it suggests that Joseph did sleep with Mary after she had Jesus, and that she did not stay a virgin).

"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." Luke 1:30-31

John (the last one written) doesn't seem to say anything about the birth of Jesus (for that matter the author doesn't even to name Mary as the mother of Jesus, although he does mention the mother of Jesus a few times). However if this is a Gnostic text (which I think it is, or at least heavily influenced by Gnosticism) I'm not surprised about it.

 

So it seems to me (IMHO), that the authors of each Gospel wrote the character of Jesus (and the nature of his birth) as they each understood him. The author of Mark, who probably read Hebrew, and wrote Mary as a young woman (as the Hebrew bible said she would be), the authors of Luke and Matthew didn't understand Hebrew and wrote Mary as virgin (as the Septuagint said she would be). While the author of John may have been a Gnostic, and thus didn't believe in a flesh and blood Jesus, so he didn't bother writing anything about Jesus' birth, because he wouldn't have had one.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
DelphicRaven wrote: I read

DelphicRaven wrote:
I read somewhere (I can't seem to remember where.. alas I have read too much) that the word "virgin" (as in Virgin Mary) was actually a mis-translation from a word that actually just meant "woman". Does anyone know anything about that?

The prophesy of Mary comes from Isaiah 7:14.  The word used there from the original Hebrew is "`almah" (Strongs H5959).  It can also be translated to the following:

1) virgin, young woman

a) of marriageable age

b) maid or newly married

From the Matthew reference in 1:23, the word used from the original Greek is "parthenos" (Strongs G3933) meaning:

1) a virgin

a) a marriageable maiden

b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

c) one's marriageable daughter

2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

a) one who has never had intercourse with women

Maid or maiden from the time period from other references in both the bible and history refer to a woman who had not been married yet and, because of what we know of the culture of the time (that is we know how men and women were then), there is a high probability that means the maid/maiden was in fact a woman who had never had sexual relations with another person.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


DelphicRaven
DelphicRaven's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, guys. It's been kind

Thanks, guys. It's been kind of baffeling me recently. That clears stuff up


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: While

Piper2000ca wrote:
While the author of John may have been a Gnostic, and thus didn't believe in a flesh and blood Jesus, so he didn't bother writing anything about Jesus' birth, because he wouldn't have had one.

This is totally off topic and I don't want to threadjack this any more than necessary, however I did want to add in a point about the Gospel of John being a gnostic text....

By writing styles, one can easily say the author of the gospel of John was also the author of the 3 letters of John as well, especially the 1st letter.  The 1st letter of John was a direct rebuttal to the gnostic movement of the time in Ephesus so that in itself is pretty conclusive evidence that the writer was not a gnostic follower.  Besides, the Gnostic movement is more about secrecy of the power of God (i.e. not sharing the knowledge they supposedly received) so the writing of the gospel would almost be a direct contradiction to their movement, ESPECIALLY considering the other three back up what was written (that can't be said about the other gnostic gospels).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: This is

razorphreak wrote:

This is totally off topic and I don't want to threadjack this any more than necessary, however I did want to add in a point about the Gospel of John being a gnostic text....

By writing styles, one can easily say the author of the gospel of John was also the author of the 3 letters of John as well, especially the 1st letter. The 1st letter of John was a direct rebuttal to the gnostic movement of the time in Ephesus so that in itself is pretty conclusive evidence that the writer was not a gnostic follower. Besides, the Gnostic movement is more about secrecy of the power of God (i.e. not sharing the knowledge they supposedly received) so the writing of the gospel would almost be a direct contradiction to their movement, ESPECIALLY considering the other three back up what was written (that can't be said about the other gnostic gospels).

    While there is a case for the First Letter of John to have been written by the same person as the Gospel of John (there are a number of phrases that are only used in both the First Letter and the Gospel of John, but I'll touch more on this further down), I do not believe that the Second and Third Letters of John were written by the author of the Gospel of John.  The second and third letters are very short, are very personal, written in the 1st person, they both start off the same (starting with "The Elder...whom I love in the truth) and end with sharing of greetings from friends.  The first letter however, is much longer, very impersonal, only the last 8 verses are 1st person (the rest of it is 3rd person), starts off very differently, and ends with a warning against idols.

    As for the First Letter of John, as I said before, there is a case based phraseology and writing style, but this may simple indicate that the authors lived in the same area, and in the same time frame (probably late 1st century or early 2nd century Ephesus, which had its fair share of Gnostics and Orthodox Christians during this time).  I more interested in the actual content.  If the author of the letter wrote the gospel as well, why didn't he mention it in the letter, especially if the gospel was being used by the Gnostics (see below).  The letter does contain some of the same concepts as the Gospel of John (such as God's love), the Gospel generally used parables to explain these concepts (a lot of parables, often given in private/secret to Jesus' disciples), however the First Letter of John doesn't have any references to any of Jesus' parables.  There's also the way that these concepts are used.  In the Gospel, the author uses many different concepts (usually built into parables) to get his message across, but the author of letter uses the same concepts (especially God's love), and uses them over and over.  So while yes, the authors share a similar writing style, I think the lack of any content from the Gospel of John, and the change the way the author tries to get his message across in the letter indicates a different author (and as I mentioned before, also an author different from the second and third letters).  While this is primarily based on my own inspection of the Gospel of John and the letters, it is shared by others such as Norman Perrin and Raymond Brown1, who note many other differences between the Gospel of John and the letters attributed to him.

    As for Gnostics not having gospels, you forget about the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Lord, and many other books and letters (many of them attributed to Paul and Peter).  There even works that are either said to be written by John (The Apocryphon of John)2, and the Acts of John (not written by him, but by a companion of him)3.  However both of these are likely 2nd century, and thus are obviously not written by John (or someone who know him), but it does indicates that the Gnostics did view John the Apostle as a Gnostic.  Indeed, the earliest known references to the Gospel of John are Gnostic (namely the Naassene fragment quoted by Hippolytus (circa 120-140)4

    Also, the very earliest written gospels may very well be a Gnostic Gospel (namely the Gospel of Thomas), although this is much harder to date then a gospel like Mark, which gives references to historical events (namely the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem).

1 - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1john.html

2 - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocryphonjohn.html

3 - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actsjohn.html

4 - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

Geez, I think I like using that particular website Eye-wink  Remind me to find some more good scholarly sources.  Any suggestions Rook?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I also believe it is

I also believe it is typically held that Mary was also a  descendant of King David. As for John's Letters, It is possible to assume that the first letter was written to an entire church, while the others were written to specific people, hence why two are personal and the other is not. Overall, I don't think there is enough evidence to go against tradition and claim they were not written by the same person as the Gospel. 


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I also believe it is typically held that Mary was also a descendant of King David. As for John's Letters, It is possible to assume that the first letter was written to an entire church, while the others were written to specific people, hence why two are personal and the other is not. Overall, I don't think there is enough evidence to go against tradition and claim they were not written by the same person as the Gospel.

The claim of Mary being a descendant of David, has to do with the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus (one from Matthew, and another from Luke). The problem with saying that one of them is attributed to Mary, is that they both state that it is the male-line followed from Joseph (despite obviously being completely different lines).

I also don't think that the authors of any of the gospels would try to make both Mary and Joseph descendants of David, simply because this could imply an incestuous relationship, regardless of how small (and Jesus was supposed to be perfect).

Yes, John I is addressed to a group or a church, and John II and III are addressed to a single person, what I was alluding to was they way the authors who wrote the letters did. John I is mostly in the third person (using "we" ), which suggests that it is either a group of authors, or on behalf of his own church. However the last part of John I is in the first person (using "I" ), so I think it is unlikely that it is a group of authors. Now what I think is more likely, is that the author was writing on behalf of his church, and wanted to include his own personal view at the end to conclude it. Now with this in mind, if it was the same author of John II and III, it would be in the same style of them, and it isn't. On these notes, I think it is safe to say John I is from a different author. However, none of this is in regards to the authorship of the Gospel of John, this is only regarding the different authorships of John I and John II and III. My reasons for not* doubting a common authorship between the letters and the Gospel of John are given above. As for tradition, tradition by itself is never a good reason to go with something.

*Edited 10:36pm (EST) June 13th 2007. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: While

Piper2000ca wrote:
While there is a case for the First Letter of John to have been written by the same person as the Gospel of John (there are a number of phrases that are only used in both the First Letter and the Gospel of John, but I'll touch more on this further down), I do not believe that the Second and Third Letters of John were written by the author of the Gospel of John.

They are still in line with the writing style and literary considerations of the 1st letter and it's very obvious once you've read them to pick up on that.  Now it may be possible that someone wrote the letters on his behalf however it is very obvious that even if John himself didn't write them, someone who was very close to him did.

Anyway on to the first letter... 

Piper2000ca wrote:
If the author of the letter wrote the gospel as well, why didn't he mention it in the letter, especially if the gospel was being used by the Gnostics (see below).

Why would he have to?  Ever read John 1:1?  Now read 1 John 1:1.  The similarities are outstanding, especially with the use of "Word" to describe God.  Continuing the first chapter of 1 John explains that he himself was there with Jesus and came to witness to those who he is writing to.  How do we know who he was writing to?...from the first chapter it is deducted that it was former Christians who split from the group, most likely gnostics, since the theme of "knowledge" is used later and since the meaning of "gnostic" is knowledge...that is how the two are tied together. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
...however the First Letter of John doesn't have any references to any of Jesus' parables.

I don't understand why that makes a difference.

Piper2000ca wrote:
...but the author of letter uses the same concepts (especially God's love), and uses them over and over.

It's typically known as writing to a specific audience and understanding who you are writing to so they will understand your message.  If someone asks you for a glass of water, do you take them to the water treatment plant? 

Piper2000ca wrote:
As for Gnostics not having gospels...

I didn't say they didn't have any...I said they didn't have any VALID gospels, i.e. writings that didn't contradict the message of Jesus. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
Also, the very earliest written gospels may very well be a Gnostic Gospel (namely the Gospel of Thomas), although this is much harder to date then a gospel like Mark, which gives references to historical events (namely the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem).

Two problems with what you just said and your information is beginning to show itself as invalid and biased.   First, Gnostic gospels  were typically written much later than the 4 traditional ones.  These gospels were also typically written in either Syria or Egypt (since that is where they typically are found).  While they do offer interesting points of view they however are not in the bible for reasons I previously mentioned (such as the contradictions to the message of Jesus).

Second issue is that of saying it has a reference to the temple destruction which is simply NOT TRUE.  I still don't understand why you hold on to that one when it's been rebuked as Jesus speaking of his return, NOT a future event.

Piper2000ca wrote:
The claim of Mary being a descendant of David, has to do with the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus (one from Matthew, and another from Luke). The problem with saying that one of them is attributed to Mary, is that they both state that it is the male-line followed from Joseph (despite obviously being completely different lines). 

I also don't think that the authors of any of the gospels would try to make both Mary and Joseph descendants of David, simply because this could imply an incestuous relationship, regardless of how small (and Jesus was supposed to be perfect).

Ummm they are decendents of David....from different sons of David.  Different mothers, different throughout the ages, but still decendent....so how is that first incestous and second, I don't understand how you would relate that to being something not from God. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
John I is mostly in the third person (using "we" ), which suggests that it is either a group of authors, or on behalf of his own church.

Actually I think you've been reading it wrong; "we" refers to John + his audience (the gnostics).  The author, John, understood who he was writing to were indeed brothers in Christ as well.

Piper2000ca wrote:
However the last part of John I is in the first person (using "I" ), so I think it is unlikely that it is a group of authors.

Hence why it follows how I just explained it. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
by the way, might I suggest

by the way, might I suggest if you want to continue this it goes to a new thread since the virgin question has been completed...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: They

razorphreak wrote:

They are still in line with the writing style and literary considerations of the 1st letter and it's very obvious once you've read them to pick up on that. Now it may be possible that someone wrote the letters on his behalf however it is very obvious that even if John himself didn't write them, someone who was very close to him did.

    I've read all three of them, and needless to say, the conclusion I get is completely different.  John II and III are clearly a different author then John I.

razorphreak wrote:

Why would he have to? Ever read John 1:1? Now read 1 John 1:1. The similarities are outstanding, especially with the use of "Word" to describe God. Continuing the first chapter of 1 John explains that he himself was there with Jesus and came to witness to those who he is writing to. How do we know who he was writing to?...from the first chapter it is deducted that it was former Christians who split from the group, most likely gnostics, since the theme of "knowledge" is used later and since the meaning of "gnostic" is knowledge...that is how the two are tied together.

    First, the author of John couldn't have actually seen Jesus for two reasons.  One, Jesus didn't exist (which is a debate for another thread), and secondly, even if he did, the gospel probably originates from about 90-120CE, way too late for the author to be an actual eye witness to the events.  But now let's look at John 1:1 and I John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life" - First Letter of John 1:1

    The first most obvious similarity is that they talk about the beginning.  First of all, just talking about the beginning at the beginning of their gospel/letter doesn't indicate anything, other then they are both trying to allude to Genesis, and naturally we see other authors from that time period doing the exact same thing (particularly Gnostic writers).  If anything, I'd think John I is simply opening his letter with something that Gnostics he is writing to would recognize and understand.  Now, the way the authors talk about the beginning is grammatically different.  In John, the author says:

    "Εν αρχη ην ο λογος..."

    But in the First Letter of John, the author says:

    "Ο ην απ αρχης..."

    In English, they basically the amount to the same thing; they are both talking about the beginning and they mention something in it.  However, in the Greek they is a major difference, the first author has put "the beginning" as the dative case, and then he mentions "the word" after.  In fact, every mention of "the beginning" (in terms of the beginning of time) in John is in the dative case.  So from the fact he continues the same style in the gospel, and the author of John and the First Letter of John were the same person, then he would likely continue this trend.  Instead, we see the author of the First Letter of John doing something completely different.  The author of the letter puts "the beginning" at the end of the sentence in the accusative case, and says that "was from the beginning."  In fact, every time the author of John I talks about "the beginning," he always says "from the beginning."  Now, the meaning of all these lines amounts to the same things, but each author is choosing to do it in a different grammatical way.  Ironically, the line that you have given for proof of common authorship, also contains some of the most solid evidence for separate authorship.

    Not there's the fact that the both mention "the word" (the logos, which is an important Gnostic concept).  The author of John uses it many times in the first chapter, and he literally says it is God.  Whereas throughout John I, the author uses it generally to refer to God/Jesus' message.  The only other reference to "the word" being God is in I John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) which doesn't appear anywhere prior to the 14th century, an probably wasn't part of the original letter.  Now as the for the "Word of life" as used in John I, the author explains that it is with God, but never says it is/was God.  He is treating it as a separate entity.  Also, the "Word of life" never occurs anywhere in the Gospel of John.  Where it does appear however (in fact, the only other place in the bible), is in Philippians 2:16, a work of Paul (which of course, the author of John I would be very familiar with).

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
...however the First Letter of John doesn't have any references to any of Jesus' parables.

I don't understand why that makes a difference.

    It makes a difference, because parables are a central part of the Gospel of John, and they are clearly important concept to the author of that Gospel.  It stands to reason, that such an important concept to the author would also appear in his letters (or at least be mentioned), and in the First Letter of John, they are completely absent.

razorphreak wrote:

It's typically known as writing to a specific audience and understanding who you are writing to so they will understand your message.  If someone asks you for a glass of water, do you take them to the water treatment plant?

    You do if you are trying to explain to them where the water comes from (or at least you talk about the water treatment plant).

razorphreak wrote:

I didn't say they didn't have any...I said they didn't have any VALID gospels, i.e. writings that didn't contradict the message of Jesus.

Ah huh.  Their gospels aren't valid because they contradict the message of Jesus.  And you call me biased?  Whether you like it or not, from a historical point of view, the Gnostic gospels are just as valid as the canonical ones.  You can't say something isn't valid just because it contradicts your views.

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
Also, the very earliest written gospels may very well be a Gnostic Gospel (namely the Gospel of Thomas), although this is much harder to date then a gospel like Mark, which gives references to historical events (namely the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem).

Two problems with what you just said and your information is beginning to show itself as invalid and biased. First, Gnostic gospels were typically written much later than the 4 traditional ones. These gospels were also typically written in either Syria or Egypt (since that is where they typically are found). While they do offer interesting points of view they however are not in the bible for reasons I previously mentioned (such as the contradictions to the message of Jesus).

Second issue is that of saying it has a reference to the temple destruction which is simply NOT TRUE. I still don't understand why you hold on to that one when it's been rebuked as Jesus speaking of his return, NOT a future event.

    While there are many Gnostic works that appear after the 4 traditional gospels, you are forgetting something.  While we don't have many surviving complete copies of early Gnostic gospels (most are in Coptic), we do know that they did exist.  We have people from the area talking about them, and its obvious that there were Gnostics as early as there were Orthodox Christians (otherwise you wouldn't have letters like I John).  As for Gnostic texts being mostly found in Egypt or Syria doesn't mean that's where they were written.  Remember, all of the earliest papyri that contain canonical works were found in Egypt, such as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (which also contains many Gnostic works, include fragments of Thomas in Koine), the Bodmer Papyri, and the Chester Beatty Papyri.

    Now as for Mark referring to the temple's destruction, let's look at what was said:

    "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." - Mark 13:1-2

    The author is saying that the temple will be destroyed, this has NOTHING to do with Jesus' return.  Heck, that's even what I was taught in my Catholic school.  Trying to say it is anything else, is just weak and desperate apologetics.

razorphreak wrote:

Ummm they are decendents of David....from different sons of David. Different mothers, different throughout the ages, but still decendent....so how is that first incestous and second, I don't understand how you would relate that to being something not from God.

    As for what I was saying about both being from the house of David, and that being incestuous, is just that I believe that the authors would try to make Jesus perfect (as they say he is), and thus wouldn't put in anything could be taken the wrong way.  However, after I posted that, I began to think that there are tons of examples of much closer relationships in the old testament, so I was probably wrong about that.  Anyways, as for Mary's lineage, it isn't from David.  In Luke, it says that Mary's sister was Elizabeth, and it says that Elizabeth's line comes from Aaron the Levite (and thus, Mary is a descendent from Aaron).

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
John I is mostly in the third person (using "we" ), which suggests that it is either a group of authors, or on behalf of his own church.

Actually I think you've been reading it wrong; "we" refers to John + his audience (the gnostics). The author, John, understood who he was writing to were indeed brothers in Christ as well.

    Yes, you are probably right about that.  "We" refers to the author of John I and his audience.  But that just goes and even further proves my point about different authors between John I and John II and III.  In John I, the author likes to talk "with" his audience, while in John II and III, the author likes to talk "to" his audience.

    As for starting another thread, I don't think we really need to, although I do think it would be a good idea if a moderator could please change the title of the post to something like "The Virgin/The Authorship of John and the Letters of John."


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I would have

Personally, I would have said new thread but whatever...I going to be skipping around on your post since the start and end are related.

Piper2000ca wrote:
I've read all three of them, and needless to say, the conclusion I get is completely different. John II and III are clearly a different author then John I.

...

Yes, you are probably right about that. "We" refers to the author of John I and his audience. But that just goes and even further proves my point about different authors between John I and John II and III. In John I, the author likes to talk "with" his audience, while in John II and III, the author likes to talk "to" his audience.

You read them yet your conclusion of different author misses probably the most obvious explanation - same author, may not be the same writer, but same "source", one to a group of people, two to individuals. When you write, you write to an audience right? OK so in the first we have a "we", i.e. group, and in 2 and 3 we have "I" and "you", meaning different intention. The theme of "active love" is what clues us into that 2 and 3 were John, not someone else. Writing styles are what match up the letters.

I understand your position but none of your ideas are (a) true or (b) unique. All of these points can easily be picked up from any number of anti-Christian sites. Your bias is showing.

Piper2000ca wrote:
First, the author of John couldn't have actually seen Jesus for two reasons. One, Jesus didn't exist (which is a debate for another thread)...

Thank you for holding back on this but that was totally uncalled for. I know your and most non-theist positions on this point so no need to call it a "reason".

Piper2000ca wrote:
...and secondly, even if he did, the gospel probably originates from about 90-120CE, way too late for the author to be an actual eye witness to the events.

And yet work by scribes, John's own disciples, etc, and John himself (and shown by John 21:24) show eye witness. The simple possibility that someone else may have completed this gospel (again going back to you know they had assistants) can easily help you understand possible dating. Very little at that time would be done quickly and to be in the mind set of the era of today, with technology such as the printing press, you are missing the point and worst making irresponsible assumptions.

Piper2000ca wrote:
First of all, just talking about the beginning at the beginning of their gospel/letter doesn't indicate anything, other then they are both trying to allude to Genesis, and naturally we see other authors from that time period doing the exact same thing (particularly Gnostic writers).

You know you are so close it amazes me how you miss it. The tense from John 1 is past, present, and future. The tense of 1 John is a past event but making reference to present and future as well. I illustrated those two passages to show you similar writing style and exacting details such as the use of the word "Word" to meaning the same thing.

A bit further down in your post you started talking about how the words differ in Greek but can mean the same in English yet you totally missed the tense of the verb. I'm actually surprised that you missed that even in the English translation.

Piper2000ca wrote:
If anything, I'd think John I is simply opening his letter with something that Gnostics he is writing to would recognize and understand.

You got this one correct (though your style of identifying which letter you are talking about gets confusing...the standard is John or 1 John. The way you wrote it here seems like you were talking about John chapter 1.). 1 John IS directed to the Gnostics which if you follow what it states will show you he is refuting them.

Now on to a different point...

Piper2000ca wrote:
It makes a difference, because parables are a central part of the Gospel of John, and they are clearly important concept to the author of that Gospel. It stands to reason, that such an important concept to the author would also appear in his letters (or at least be mentioned), and in the First Letter of John, they are completely absent.

But you didn't answer my question IN CONTEXT. What would it matter if your audience isn't concerned with that or more so, already knows them?

Piper2000ca wrote:
You do if you are trying to explain to them where the water comes from (or at least you talk about the water treatment plant).

I agree but if you aren't then the point of going to the plant is overkill and not needed. Same applies to the parables; they are not necessary to explain more than once. Put yourself in the shoes of John and those he was writing to at the time and you'll see that John KNEW these Gnostics. That also means that the Gnostics were very must capable of knowing the story behind Jesus and possibly familiar with all 4 gospels. At no time do you seem to want to accept this point so I guess we are at a stalemate.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Their gospels aren't valid because they contradict the message of Jesus. And you call me biased? Whether you like it or not, from a historical point of view, the Gnostic gospels are just as valid as the canonical ones. You can't say something isn't valid just because it contradicts your views.

I can show where many of those gospels contradict what Jesus' message was about from the four regarded ones.  That's not bias; that's pointing out the obvious. We are talking Christianity vs. Gnosticism so a big part of this is which side I'm defending and if I can do so without rebuttal from the other side. My favorite example is that from the Gospel of Judas. In it it has the passages from the others explaining who would be the "greatest disciple." (Mark 9:33-37, Matthew 18:1-5, Luke 9:46-48) In it, the point Jesus makes is no one should consider themselves better than the next person. Yet in Judas writing, Jesus supposedly pulls Judas aside and tells him he IS the greatest...a clear contradiction to the message.

Piper2000ca wrote:
While we don't have many surviving complete copies of early Gnostic gospels (most are in Coptic), we do know that they did exist.

I never said they didn't, I just said their message is incorrect.

Piper2000ca wrote:
As for Gnostic texts being mostly found in Egypt or Syria doesn't mean that's where they were written.

And in the 1st and 2nd centuries, letters like this traveled? The DSS is in the area of where the first Christians would have been no? Why would they have traveled to Egypt to store the message if they were in fact written in a different place outside the location of where "Christians" were?

Piper2000ca wrote:
The author is saying that the temple will be destroyed, this has NOTHING to do with Jesus' return. Heck, that's even what I was taught in my Catholic school. Trying to say it is anything else, is just weak and desperate apologetics.

And yet you don't include all of chapter 13 (and it appears neither did your Catholic school teacher)? Why? Why are you not taking into context what things were describing in full? Read John 2:19-20 which describes the exact same scene. My point here being your interpretation is out of context with the rest of the chapter so if it were to be taken in proper context (remember that's why they are divided up into chapters) we are talking about Jesus' death and return to Earth after after...

Piper2000ca wrote:
Anyways, as for Mary's lineage, it isn't from David. In Luke, it says that Mary's sister was Elizabeth, and it says that Elizabeth's line comes from Aaron the Levite (and thus, Mary is a descendent from Aaron).

Where does it say that Elizabeth was Mary's sister?

Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

Only Luke speaks of where John the Baptist was from and while the Mary and Elizabeth are related, they were NOT pointed out as sisters. From the Greek they are most likely cousins. The word used is syggenēs (Strong's G4773). It is defined as:

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

Not sister....sorry.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: You

razorphreak wrote:

You read them yet your conclusion of different author misses probably the most obvious explanation - same author, may not be the same writer, but same "source", one to a group of people, two to individuals. When you write, you write to an audience right? OK so in the first we have a "we", i.e. group, and in 2 and 3 we have "I" and "you", meaning different intention. The theme of "active love" is what clues us into that 2 and 3 were John, not someone else. Writing styles are what match up the letters.

    The Gospel of John and the Letters of John are from the same author because they all talk about love?  You got to be kidding me.  Love (or "active love" as you called it) is one of the central tenants of Christianity!  Of course you are going to find it in multiple letters/gospels.  You might as well tell me that they are the same author because they all talk about Jesus (actually, to be purely technical, 3 John doesn't actually mention Jesus anywhere, just God, but that is beside the point as it is obviously from the same author as 2 John which does mention Jesus).

    What I'm surprised you haven't picked up on (and in the interest of truth and honesty I will), is the fact that both the First and Second Letter of John mention the antichrist (αντιχριστος).  Indeed, they are the only references to the antichrist in the entire canon.  There are other references to "false prophets" and "false messiahs" in other works, both in and outside the biblical canon, but none of them (even revelations) seem to use αντιχριστος.  Now, a single common term doesn't guarantee that they are from the same author (apocalyptic themes were very popular in and around Israel during this time), but the common terminology does suggest they had a similar teaching at the very least (which would explain both the use of αντιχριστος, and the different format of the letters).  Again, this doesn't guarantee common authorship between 1 John and the other two letters, but I will not rule out the idea at this point.

    However, this actually brings up another interesting difference between 1 John (and 2 John for that matter) and the Gospel of John, is lack of talk about the end of the world in John, despite the fact that the author of 1 John is clearly concerned with end of the world, and believes it is imminent (1 John 2:18).  If the author of John wrote 1 John, it begs the question "Why would someone who is convinced the world is about to end not write anything about it in a gospel he wrote?"

razorphreak wrote:

I understand your position but none of your ideas are (a) true or (b) unique. All of these points can easily be picked up from any number of anti-Christian sites. Your bias is showing.

    Ah, the irony.  Firstly, if my ideas don't seem "unique," that is because it is often shared by much of the scholarly community.  Secondly, my sources aren't "anti-Christian" sites, if I need to use the internet, I try to find scholarly sites, or sites such as www.earlychristianwritings.com.  I should note that I often start out at wikipedia, but I never include it unless I can also find the same information from more trustworthy places.  As for your ideas, they can be found on any apologetic/pro-Christian website, so that criticism go both ways.

razorphreak wrote:

And yet work by scribes, John's own disciples, etc, and John himself (and shown by John 21:24) show eye witness.

    Just because they say they had eye-witnesses, doesn't mean they did have eye-witnesses.  Saying otherwise is just circular reasoning.  As for scribes or any extra-biblical sources purporting to be eye-witnesses, please cite examples.

razorphreak wrote:

The simple possibility that someone else may have completed this gospel (again going back to you know they had assistants) can easily help you understand possible dating. Very little at that time would be done quickly and to be in the mind set of the era of today, with technology such as the printing press, you are missing the point and worst making irresponsible assumptions.

    Wait, you are saying that someone else may have completed this gospel?  Just for clarity, can you state exactly what person/persons you believe wrote the Gospel of John. because up to this point, I thought you were saying just John the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of John.  For that matter, do you think John the Evangelist is also John the Apostle, or someone else?  I wouldn't also mind hearing what your views of the date of the Gospel of John is.  Also, how am I suggesting that it would have been written in a short amount of time?  I've said nothing of that other then that the Gospel was probably written between 90-120CE (hardly a short amount of time, especially considering Jesus' death was supposed to be around 35CE).

razorphreak wrote:

You know you are so close it amazes me how you miss it. The tense from John 1 is past, present, and future. The tense of 1 John is a past event but making reference to present and future as well. I illustrated those two passages to show you similar writing style and exacting details such as the use of the word "Word" to meaning the same thing.

    That's just it though, they aren't that similar.  You can state that over and over again, it doesn't make it any more true.  As for the tense of the verbs, firstly, like the rest of the gospels, and any other stories, the vast majority of the verbs are past tense (except of course when people are talking).  So virtually all of John's verbs are past tense, and as for 1 John, it does have plenty of verbs in all three.  As for the use of "the word" (ο λογος - ho logos) their use is completely different.  In the Gospel of John, the author says that "the word" literally is God, and comes from God.  As for 1 John, the author says "the word of life" (possibly a Pauline reference, as the only other place it is found is in Philippians 4:16) and he treats it more as a message (as was used by Paul in Philippians 4:16).

    Now, if you are talking about the over all "temporal" themes of the Gospel of John, that's something else.  Firstly, in 1 John, we start out with a talk about the beginning (the past), and then we talk about the both the present (which is mostly about actions and consequences) and the future in the middle, and then at the end of letter it returns to talk about the present (again, with talk about actions and consequences).  There really isn't anything significant here, the author opens his letter with talk of the beginning, and then jumps around a bit (typical of many letters).  As for the Gospels, they all share a common theme of talking about the origin of Christ, whether it is a nativity story like Matthew and Luke, the baptism of Jesus and the start of his ministry in Mark, or his emanation/"being sent from god" in John.  Then they talk about his ministry, finish with his crucifixion and resurrection, and has talk about his coming again interspliced throughout (but typically towards the end).  Obviously nothing surprising here, we all know it, but the point is that the past-present-future design is typical of all the gospels (indeed, it is typical of any story involving moral implications).  So yet again, you've pointed out something obvious, but doesn't anything to do with the authorship of the Letters of John or the Gospel of John.

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
It makes a difference, because parables are a central part of the Gospel of John, and they are clearly important concept to the author of that Gospel. It stands to reason, that such an important concept to the author would also appear in his letters (or at least be mentioned), and in the First Letter of John, they are completely absent.

But you didn't answer my question IN CONTEXT. What would it matter if your audience isn't concerned with that or more so, already knows them?

    Because of just that reason, his audience would know them*.  Also, I'm not saying that he would spell them out again, but that since they were important in the Gospel of John, and they were important to Gnostics (especially those who also used the Gospel of John) that he would make reference to them (or at least, references to the Gospel of John in general).  In deed, he's one of the few letter authors in the biblical canon that doesn't quote Jesus (or at least reference something he said), or make references/quotes about scripture.  Remember, he talks about ideas and terms they share in common, so why wouldn't he mention something he wrote and they read?

*Little correction I should make, I should say metaphorical/allegorical stories/references as opposed to actual parables like the ones that are said in the synoptic gospels.

razorphreak wrote:

I can show where many of those gospels contradict what Jesus' message was about from the four regarded ones. That's not bias; that's pointing out the obvious. We are talking Christianity vs. Gnosticism so a big part of this is which side I'm defending and if I can do so without rebuttal from the other side. My favorite example is that from the Gospel of Judas. In it it has the passages from the others explaining who would be the "greatest disciple." (Mark 9:33-37, Matthew 18:1-5, Luke 9:46-48) In it, the point Jesus makes is no one should consider themselves better than the next person. Yet in Judas writing, Jesus supposedly pulls Judas aside and tells him he IS the greatest...a clear contradiction to the message.

    I'm not saying that isn't differences and contradictions between Gnostic texts and the 4 canonical ones.  Of course there is (heck, there are many differences and contradictions between the Gnostic texts, just as they are differences and contradictions between the canonical ones).  That's not what I was talking about.  You just make it sound like that they are historically less historically valuable or truthful then the canonical ones.  Personally, I consider them all equally as historically valuable, and equally as fictional.  Besides, what was considered Gnostic and what was considered Orthodox has changed over time (especially in the early chruch).  I've already mentioned how Gnostics used texts like Mark and John, and the letters of Paul, but we have references to Gnostic and heretical works being used by Orthodox followers as well.  The Codex Sinaiticus for example contains The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas (both of these were not necessarilly Gnostic, but were later considered heretical or apocryphal).  The Oxyrhynchus Papyri that I mentioned earlier, also contains the Gospel of Mary (very Gnostic), and what appears to be the Gospel of Peter.  The Gospel of Peter is also not neccesarilly Gnostic, but the fact it anthropomorphizes the cross that Jesus is on (ie. the cross literally speaks to him), and the fact the church eventually considered it heretical suggests that it is.  We mostly only have the passion narrative from it, so without more it is hard to tell.

razorphreak wrote:

And in the 1st and 2nd centuries, letters like this traveled? The DSS is in the area of where the first Christians would have been no? Why would they have traveled to Egypt to store the message if they were in fact written in a different place outside the location of where "Christians" were?

    By DSS do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls?  Because those aren't Christian texts, they are Jewish (they contain books of the old testament).  So needless to say, finding those in Israel isn't exactly surprising.  In fact, I did some looking around, and just like the Gnostic texts, and it seems all the earliest Christian manuscripts we have are from outside Israel.  We find them in places like Egypt and Syria, exactly like we do with Gnostic works.  And of course letters and gospels like these "traveled" (a better word would be copied) as the religions spread.

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
The author is saying that the temple will be destroyed, this has NOTHING to do with Jesus' return. Heck, that's even what I was taught in my Catholic school. Trying to say it is anything else, is just weak and desperate apologetics.

And yet you don't include all of chapter 13 (and it appears neither did your Catholic school teacher)? Why? Why are you not taking into context what things were describing in full? Read John 2:19-20 which describes the exact same scene. My point here being your interpretation is out of context with the rest of the chapter so if it were to be taken in proper context (remember that's why they are divided up into chapters) we are talking about Jesus' death and return to Earth after after...

    For starters, John was written long after Mark was, and has no bearing on what the author of Mark was trying to say.  Remember, in John, the author likes to put in phrases where Jesus compares himself to something, whether it be a temple or a fruit vine (John 15:1).  Does that mean every reference in the gospels to fruit vines are about Jesus?  Or course not, you have to read into the context of each individual writer, and in the context of Mark, they are talking about the temple in literal (not metaphorical) fashion.  Also, in the rest of Mark 13 and the temples destruction, Jesus goes on to describe how this will all happen (the temples destruction) at the end times, and how he will return.  This is also the chapter in which Jesus says (again, in reference to the end times):

    "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." - Mark 13:30

    There's an obvious problem with this, the temple has been destroyed, they've all died now, and no second coming.  But back then (after the temple was destroyed) many Jews (and Christians) believed that they were witnessing the end times, so Jesus saying to his disciples "this generation shall not pass" would have sounded perfectly normal.  And because they thought it was the end times, people where putting apocalyptic literature into their works, and Mark 13:2 is a perfect example of that.

razorphreak wrote:

Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

Only Luke speaks of where John the Baptist was from and while the Mary and Elizabeth are related, they were NOT pointed out as sisters. From the Greek they are most likely cousins. The word used is syggenēs (Strong's G4773). It is defined as:

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

Not sister....sorry.

    My mistake....sorry.  I had known that it did say relative, but I had always been taught that Jesus was John's cousin (and the implications was close cousin's, not distant cousins), and had incorrectly assumed that meant Mary was Elizabeth's sister.  However, you still haven't shown any proof to your claim that Mary is a descendant of David.  I have no problem retracting a claim if I have been proven wrong/mistaken.  So either show proof Mary coming from David, or retract your claim.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: The

Piper2000ca wrote:
The Gospel of John and the Letters of John are from the same author because they all talk about love? You got to be kidding me. Love (or "active love" as you called it) is one of the central tenants of Christianity!

I called it "active love" because if you actually cared to read them all (sometimes by the way you speak you are overgeneralizing a lot which makes me think you haven't read anything you claim to have) you'd see the similarities as well as tone and theme.  Yes love is common to all of what is Christian writings however how can I say it differs in John and the letters of John?  Read them with an open mind and you might actually catch it.  I'm not even talking about real or not, tale of fiction or fact, I'm just simply talking about how the author actually writes.  If you've ever read The Firm and then compare it to say The Rainmaker, you compare it to say the common theme is law.  But even with that similarity they are different.  How does that work?

Piper2000ca wrote:
What I'm surprised you haven't picked up on (and in the interest of truth and honesty I will), is the fact that both the First and Second Letter of John mention the antichrist (αντιχριστος). Indeed, they are the only references to the antichrist in the entire canon.

I'm really not sure how this relates to your position but...whatever.

Piper2000ca wrote:
However, this actually brings up another interesting difference between 1 John (and 2 John for that matter) and the Gospel of John, is lack of talk about the end of the world in John, despite the fact that the author of 1 John is clearly concerned with end of the world, and believes it is imminent (1 John 2:18). If the author of John wrote 1 John, it begs the question "Why would someone who is convinced the world is about to end not write anything about it in a gospel he wrote?"

And?  What people have never been wrong before?  All the disciples not to mention even Paul in some ways believed the return would be in their lifetime yet even Jesus said, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36)  This is the reason the theme remains.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Ah, the irony. Firstly, if my ideas don't seem "unique," that is because it is often shared by much of the scholarly community. ... As for your ideas, they can be found on any apologetic/pro-Christian website, so that criticism go both ways.

And it will go on that way until the end of our time for sure.  The interesting part of what you wrote here was how you are clearly not open to someone else's ideas - you identify your source(s) as "scholarly" and do not give the same title to a Christian site.  I do not sit here and say one is and one isn't; it simply is how people are to disagree, especially when misunderstandings are prevalent.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Just because they say they had eye-witnesses, doesn't mean they did have eye-witnesses. Saying otherwise is just circular reasoning. As for scribes or any extra-biblical sources purporting to be eye-witnesses, please cite examples.

Ah yes back to that.  As to scribes, I have no examples of works but I wasn't talking about their works, I was talking about them existing to begin with and in Jewish society, we all know they did. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
Wait, you are saying that someone else may have completed this gospel? Just for clarity, can you state exactly what person/persons you believe wrote the Gospel of John. because up to this point, I thought you were saying just John the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of John. For that matter, do you think John the Evangelist is also John the Apostle, or someone else? I wouldn't also mind hearing what your views of the date of the Gospel of John is. Also, how am I suggesting that it would have been written in a short amount of time? I've said nothing of that other then that the Gospel was probably written between 90-120CE (hardly a short amount of time, especially considering Jesus' death was supposed to be around 35CE).

 As far as who may have written the Gospel of John, first I do believe it to be the apostle John.  From what I understand of the issue, some scholars believe there to be two John's in the NT, some three.  Because of the similar themes and writing styles, I believe there to only be two.  The gospel and the 3 letters are that of the same person, the apostle.  The book of revelation is from an unrelated John.

Something I keep asking you to stop and think about is how long it would take to write something by hand (i.e. by pen, pencil, etc) and publish it in the same way.  There is a reason that there is a 30 year discrepancy and I've often wondered if what was found could have been the "original draft" if you will and not a rewrite/copy of the original.  It is not something that you'll find on some site but merely my suggestion in consideration how difficult it would have been to produce a literary work at that time.

Piper2000ca wrote:
That's just it though, they aren't that similar.

So how is it that you don't see it?  Are you just going off of what some other atheist told you was the truth by their evaluation or did you read them and come to the same conclusion.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Because of just that reason, his audience would know them*. Also, I'm not saying that he would spell them out again, but that since they were important in the Gospel of John, and they were important to Gnostics (especially those who also used the Gospel of John) that he would make reference to them (or at least, references to the Gospel of John in general). In deed, he's one of the few letter authors in the biblical canon that doesn't quote Jesus (or at least reference something he said), or make references/quotes about scripture. Remember, he talks about ideas and terms they share in common, so why wouldn't he mention something he wrote and they read?

Huh?  You made very little sense there.  What I'm reading here could be related to saying "in your statement for women's equal pay you reference the 19th amendment of the Constitution speaking of women's rights yet you didn't include the bill of rights in your statement so because of that your whole argument is incorrect."  See how foolish that sounds?  First you say they would know them but because they did know them and were important to his audience, he SHOULD have restated them again?  WHAT?

Piper2000ca wrote:
That's not what I was talking about. You just make it sound like that they are historically less historically valuable or truthful then the canonical ones. Personally, I consider them all equally as historically valuable, and equally as fictional.

I'll never get over how it is that you keep managing to somehow rewrite what I say.  That's the second time you've done it.

I never said they were fiction or not historic in value.  All I said was they contradict what is found from the bible.  That's all I said and you took it to mean historical value?  I'm wondering, if you might need to reconsider how you "view" various subjects. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
By DSS do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls? Because those aren't Christian texts, they are Jewish (they contain books of the old testament). So needless to say, finding those in Israel isn't exactly surprising. In fact, I did some looking around, and just like the Gnostic texts, and it seems all the earliest Christian manuscripts we have are from outside Israel. We find them in places like Egypt and Syria, exactly like we do with Gnostic works. And of course letters and gospels like these "traveled" (a better word would be copied) as the religions spread.

Last I checked, the first "Christians" were Jews so how could their writings not be considered Jewish in nature?  Oh, since they were Jewish, why would they not be found in Israel?

Which Christian writings do you speak of that are not gnostic? 

Piper2000ca wrote:
Also, in the rest of Mark 13 and the temples destruction, Jesus goes on to describe how this will all happen (the temples destruction) at the end times, and how he will return. This is also the chapter in which Jesus says (again, in reference to the end times):

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." - Mark 13:30

There's an obvious problem with this, the temple has been destroyed, they've all died now, and no second coming.

First, you are still under the premise that Mark 13 is talking about the temple destruction.  It isn't.

Second, you are taking it to mean that Mark was written after the temple was destroyed; it wasn't. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
But back then (after the temple was destroyed) many Jews (and Christians) believed that they were witnessing the end times, so Jesus saying to his disciples "this generation shall not pass" would have sounded perfectly normal. And because they thought it was the end times, people where putting apocalyptic literature into their works, and Mark 13:2 is a perfect example of that.

And how many will say the same thing during times of war?  I'm sure that the Japanese citizens would say the same at Hiroshima and Germans in Berlin during the final air raids of that city.  My point is while some thought it to be the end of times, it was destruction by man, not God.

Piper2000ca wrote:
My mistake....sorry. I had known that it did say relative, but I had always been taught that Jesus was John's cousin (and the implications was close cousin's, not distant cousins), and had incorrectly assumed that meant Mary was Elizabeth's sister. However, you still haven't shown any proof to your claim that Mary is a descendant of David. I have no problem retracting a claim if I have been proven wrong/mistaken. So either show proof Mary coming from David, or retract your claim.

Funny, I thought I just did.  Now what is your argument from the Luke statement?  It obviously has to be different but you didn't tell me what it is now. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
At the risk of taking this

At the risk of taking this discussion a little bit further astray, I'd like to address the issue of the gnosticism of John.  John was far from a gnostic.  In fact, the opening paragraph of his Gospel is a direct refutation of the gnostic beliefs of his time, specifically those of the Nicolaites and Cerinthians.  While gnostic beliefs varied from sect to sect, the following outline based on the work of Henry Owen will suffice for comparison to the opening of John's Gospel.

The Unknown most high God lived in heaven with Aeons. He generated an only-begotten son, called MONOGENES, who begat the inferior LOGOS [The Greek for WORD]. There were two high Aeons called LIFE and LIGHT. From the Aeons proceeded inferior orders of spirits, including CHRIST and DEMIURGUS. It was DEMIURGUS who created this visible world out of eternal matter. This DEMIURGUS was ignorant of the supreme God and much lower than the invisible Aeons. He was protector of the Israelites and sent Moses to them with laws of perpetual obligation. 

Jesus was a mere man, the real son of Joseph and Mary. But CHRIST descended on him in the form of a dove when he was baptised. CHRIST revealed to him the unknown Father and empowered him to work miracles. Similarly the Aeon, LIGHT, entered into John the Baptist. As LIGHT was superior to CHRIST, John the Baptist was in some respects to be preferred to Jesus.

After Jesus had propagated the knowledge of God, he came to suffer, so CHRIST left him and fled to the uppermost heaven. So it was Jesus only who suffered. CHRIST would return to reign for a thousand years, with humanity the slave of lust and pleasure.  Some groups denied that Christ had risen and that there would be a resurrection of the dead.

We are now able to compare the opening words of the Gospel of John with this teaching. 

John says that CHRIST is the LOGOS [The WORD] of God (John 1: 1). The WORD and MONOGENES [the only begotten son of God] are one and the same person (1: 14). CHRIST, or The WORD, is not an inferior Aeon, but God (1: 1). Christ was not ignorant of God, but knew him always and perfectly in heaven (1: 18). Christ is not to be distinguished from the DEMIURGUS for he is the creator of the whole world (1: 10). LIFE and LIGHT are not particular and separate spirits, but the same as the LOGOS and CHRIST (John 1: 4, 7-9).

So John is saying that CHRIST, the LOGOS [The WORD], LIFE, LIGHT and MONOGENES (the only-begotten) are not distinct Aeons [Spirits], but one and the same Divine person. John says that an Aeon, LIGHT, did not enter into John the Baptist and communicate to him supreme knowledge of the Divine Will. He was a mere man and though inspired, much inferior to Jesus being only the forerunner of him (John 1: 6, 8, 15).

John explains that the Supreme God was not entirely unknown before the time of Christ. Men were enlightened in their own consciences, but they did not want to know him (1: 9-10). The Jews were not the particular people of an inferior god, DEMIURGUS, but of CHRIST, himself the only-begotten son of God (1: 11). Eventually he became man (1: 14) and fulfilled the Law of Moses, which was only a shadow of good things to come, and instituted its fullness. CHRIST came for all men not the Jews only (1: 12,13)). John refutes the idea that John the Baptist, was superior to CHRIST (John 1: 15-34).

The anti-Marcionite Prologue to John's Gospel, written by an unknown author in the second century explains John's motivation for writing an account of Jesus ministry thus:  "John the Apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved exceedingly, last of all wrote this Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially the teachings of the Ebionites then arising, …"

So John the Evangelist (and Apostle) was writing to combat these early heresies.

John didn't cover the birth of Christ because he was aware that two previous writers had already done so and would rather spend his resources refuting the errors of Cerinthus and clarifying aspects of Jesus' life not found in the existing books.

John probably wrote the bulk of the Gospel between 65-70 AD.  I will concede that the final chapter or so was written shortly before his death in the mid-90's.

I also take issue with the contention that Mark' Gospel was written first, especially since the earliest written evidence of the early church fathers point to the order Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.  Markan priority is based on the existence of the "Q" source, which is a construct of "liberal" German theology of the 18th century.  No copy, fragment or even quotes attributed to "Q" have ever been recovered.

Just a quick aside, Piper.  I think it's awesome that you've learned Koine Greek.  Are you self-taught?  Any recommendations for a good text to learn from?

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II