quote:

Is the work known as the “Gospel of John” to be regarded as a contemporary factual account describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth or rather a late 1st century theological composition, specifically a sophisticated Hellenistic Christian aretalogy?

quote:

The gospel of John was probably composed around the year 100, possibly at Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia.

quote:

John also has to explain to his readers that ‘Messiah’ means ‘Christ’ (1.41) and that Jews do not associate with Samaritans. (4.9) Clearly, this work was not written for any Jewish community

quote:

It would seem that John belonged to some school of religious thought on the margins of Christian theology. He appears to have leaned towards Gnosticism, but also drew on other ideas intelligible to Hellenistic/Roman society.

quote:

In marked contrast to the Jesus, of the synoptics, this character delivers lengthy, artificial, mystical speeches, about himself and the relationship between him and his [often uncomprehending] followers, and their relationship with God and with each other in their mutual faith.

This Jesus character is always in total control. He is presented as being completely aware, in advance, of any evidence or details about other people: their character or personal history, their situation or subsequent intentions.

quote:

but he is also remote rather stilted and somewhat inhuman.

quote:

The gospel is obviously the result of the reflections and beliefs of John and his community, rather than any deliberate attempt to improve or enhance the historical record.

quote:

Unfortunately It has the effect of leading to a presentation of a self-obsessed Jesus instead of the man who inspired people to love and follow him.

This Jesus proclaims himself, instead of the nature and demands of the kingdom of God. Instead of challenging his listeners to confront themselves, his message is that you surrender to a belief in him. From this, everything else will follow.

quote:

The Jewish prophet who expected people to worship not himself, but God alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denker

Is the work known as the “Gospel of John” to be regarded as a contemporary factual account describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth or rather a late 1st century theological composition, specifically a sophisticated Hellenistic Christian aretalogy?

quote:

Neither, it is be regarded as what it is...The Word of God...

quote:

I will respond to these points later on, but please excuse me for a few days - family matters must currently take precedence!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

URForgiven,

quote:

Neither, it is be regarded as what it is...The Word of God...

Scripture is not in a genre-less vacuum. If you take it that way, you will come to some faulty interpretations!

quote:

I do not rely on interpretation. I rely on the Holy Spirit. Remember Him? Or have you forgotten who you began with?

quote:

It would seem that John belonged to some school of religious thought on the margins of Christian theology. He appears to have leaned towards Gnosticism, but also drew on other ideas intelligible to Hellenistic/Roman society. His work employs much deliberate interpretation and is far more theologically sophisticated than the synoptic gospels. It is also very different in style from them, and even more self-consciously arranged. It has no birth or infancy narratives, but starts with John the baptiser.

quote:

The work is consistently and virulently anti-Jewish, and depicts an enigmatic and hostile Jesus who vociferously criticizes the ‘Jews’ for not recognizing that their own scriptures have the function of testifying to him.

quote:

John the baptiser.

This figure is not depicted as a realistic or independent historical character (as in the Synoptics), but as being utterly subordinated to Jesus and defining himself purely in terms of being a witness to Jesus as the ‘Christ.’

quote:

Despite the adroit creativity, the enhanced theology, and all the sophistication of its structure, John's message is extremely simplistic. He is only concerned with ‘faith’ [πιστις - more accurately rendered as trust or allegiance] in Jesus. There is not even any ethical teaching worth speaking of in this entire work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Neither. History wasn't recorded and reported in the CNN-style we have today. Given the oral tradition that was still very much at large in the 1st century culture, the stories, though factually accurate, were recorded differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesIf it has such a late date of writing, why is no mention made of the destruction of the temple at 70 AD?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesIt would make sense for John to write with the possibility of gentile readership in mind, given the spread of Christianity to the gentile population as described in Acts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesIt seems unlikely that John has any leanings towards gnosticism, since the epistle of 1 John is an attack against proto-gnostic teachers in the early Church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesEach gospel was written for a different purpose. John is certainly most distinct out of the four, but it would make sense for someone with a different point of view to write different facts. I don't think that different, non-contradictory events is any sort of evidence for John not being actual history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesI don't know, I find a thirty Jesus, a Jesus who weeps at His friend's death (despite knowing He can bring him back to life), fairly human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesPersonally, as you may have guessed, I don't think it is obvious at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesThat is because one cannot enter into His kingdom without surrendering to Him. As I said above, John is teaching on a different aspect of who Christ is and what He taught. Different does not equal false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesWell, since He is also God alone, I don't really see a problem here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribblesIf it has such a late date of writing, why is no mention made of the destruction of the temple at 70 AD?
Almost certainly because of the dangerous political situation prevailing for both Jews and Christians, in the late 1st century, especially in Asia. Domitian, the last ruler of the Flavian dynasty, was in power. His father Vespasian and older brother Titus had ruthlessly suppressed the first Jewish revolt (66-71 CE). Jerusalem, along with its temple and cult, had been destroyed. The Jewish national state was abolished and Judaea was now a praetorian province with a legionary garrison

quote:

Perhaps the unworldly, mystical, non-political Jesus depicted in John’s Gospel with his violently anti-Jewish sentiments, inflammatory outbursts, and kingdom, “not of this world,” may, in some measure, reflect the tenor of these contemporary anti-Judaic social attitudes.

quote:

That the times were perilous is not debatable but the importance of the destruction of Jerusalem would not be ommitted from any gospel if they were written afterwards. After all Jerusalem is mentioned 800 times in the bible.

What you apparently fail to realise is the fear and embarrassment felt by the early Christians after the defeat of the Jewish insurgents and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Their eponymous leader, Christ, had been executed, during the reign of Tiberius, for sedition against Rome and many other Jews had suffered a similar fate during the five year long conflict with the forces of Vespasian and Titus. The spoils of the temple were paraded along with Jewish captives [including the rebel leader Simon bar Giora] through the streets of Rome in Vespasian and Titus’ triumphal celebration in 71 CE.

The earliest synoptic gospel, that of Mark, attempts to counter this dangerous situation for Christians living in Rome by distancing them from the rebellious Jews and portraying Jesus as pacific and non-political. The Roman authorities are practically exonerated from responsibility for the crucifixion and blame is transferred instead to the Jewish leaders and their violent, vociferous mob of supporters.

Later gospel writers,notably Matthew, elaborate the scenario and the defamatory declaration, “His blood be on us and our children,” (Matt. 27: 25) put into the mouths of all the assembled [Jewish] people [πας ό λαος] has echoed down the centuries in anti-Semitic prejudice and persecution.

The new Christian cult had broken away completely from Judaism by the close of the 1st century and the earthly Jerusalem temple and its defunct cult no longer held any significance or importance for gentile Christians. Their attention was firmly fixed on the imminent return of Christ to earth and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem as depicted in the apocalypse of “John.”

quote:

The Romans were proud of this even minting it on a coin and engraving it in stone columns plus Christians were already persecuted because they believed Jesus was God not Ceaser.

Roman coinage with the inscription, ‘Judaea capta,’ was certainly issued to celebrate the victorious conclusion of the war, but I think you are here confusing the triumphal Arch of Titus with the later column of Trajan (98-117 CE). This monument was errected to commemorate the emperor’s campaigns in Dacia (Romania) and provides much valuable information about the Roman imperial army at this period.

The persecution of Christians by the Roman State is an enormous subject in its own right. Suffice to say that it was localised and sporadic at differing periods from the 1st to the 4th century.The principal reason for the secular antipathy towards the new religion was the adamant refusal of its adherents to recognise the authority of the civil powers. It was the contumacia [obstinance] of individual Christians in the face of magisterial coercitio [restraint] that resulted in their condemnation.

quote:

I'm not aware of violently anti-jewish sentiments in John only that salvation is through him not the law.

Have you ever tried setting aside your religious preconceptions for a while, critically read through John’s gospel, and then asked yourself this question, would any actual 1st century Galilean teacher have really addressed his fellow Jews in such a manner as depicted in these scenarios?
Moreover ‘salvation’ [σωτηρια] was conceived in different ways, in different places and at different periods of time in the Hellenistic/Roman world.


< Message edited by Denker -- 8/15/2008 9:15:54 AM >

quote:

What you apparently fail to realise is the fear and embarrassment felt by the early Christians after the defeat of the Jewish insurgents and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Their eponymous leader, Christ, had been executed, during the reign of Tiberius, for sedition

quote:

However, its intensely idiosyncratic portrait of Jesus as a semi-remote cosmic entity is not really very attractive or appealing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steve7150

quote:

What you apparently fail to realise is the fear and embarrassment felt by the early Christians after the defeat of the Jewish insurgents and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Their eponymous leader, Christ, had been executed, during the reign of Tiberius, for sedition

quote:

Fear and embarrassment by Christians? The whole essence of Christianity is that Christ's death was necessary to lead to his resurrection which Christians rejoice over. And his death and resurrection had been predicted in the OT in Isaiah 53 and other places thus Jewish believers were anything but embarrassed.

Yes in imminent danger and actual fear for their lives, after all, these people were vulnerable human beings, men women and children. Try to imagine the social and political situation prevailing at Rome in 71 CE, for the members of a relatively new, clandestine and commonly despised foreign cult with known Jewish antecedents.

Set aside your modern 21st century notions and just try to imagine what it would have really been like for the small Christian community during the Flavian triumphal celebrations over rebel Judaea. Remember that the systematic persecution of an earlier group of Christians in the imperial capital, by Nero in 64 CE, had taken place merely seven years earlier.

As for the crucifixion of Jesus, (Χριστον εσταυρωμενον) Paul had [earlier] described it as “Іουδαιοις μεν σκανδαλον, εθνεσιν δε μωριαν.” (1st Corinthians 1:23)

Yes it must have imparted some degree of embarassment. Christians were ridiculed as credulous and pliant for worshipping a crucified Jewish sophist and believing themselves to be immortal. The symbol of the cross was rarely encountered in Christian iconography until the early fourth century [following Constantius’ general edict of religious toleration] and artistic representations of the crucifixion (except for satirical graffiti) were produced even later in time.

quote:

The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was prophecied by Christ in Matt 24,Mark 13 and Luke 21 thus to not mention it IF other parts of the NT were written after 70AD is unthinkable.

Not completely unthinkable, after taking into consideration the contemporary socio/political situation that I have been attempting to outline. Moreover, the inherent probability of praedictio post eventum on the part of the Gospel writers,’ cannot be excluded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

However, its intensely idiosyncratic portrait of Jesus as a semi-remote cosmic entity is not really very attractive or appealing.

quote:

This statement, and everything else in the OP clearly reveals that whoever came up with this analysis of John's Gospel (and it would appear that Denker has quoted this but forgotten to tell us from where) is viewing it in purely humanistic terms, and that too within a theologically liberal view of Scripture and Christ. "A semi-remote cosmic entity" is really quite laughable.

Why do you immediately assume that any opinion diverging from your own entrenched viewpoint must of necessity be “quoted” from some extraneous source? I could easily delve into my extensive library and provide a comprehensive list of the works which have helped shape my thinking, regarding these matters, over the past decades but do not consider it necessary at this particular moment. Kindly give some credit to alternative interpretations.

quote:

The stamp of Divine inspiration is in every word and verse in this Gospel. John tells us precisely why he wrote it -- that men would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and believing they would have eternal life. Therefore these are words of Spirit and Life.

How do you know that these are absolute facts? In reality they are nothing more than received traditional opinions and narrow dogmatic theological supposition. The only “fact” is that this text [John’s gospel] exists in the Greek language. The rest is merely interpretation and hypothesis.

quote:

This Gospel must be read in the light of of the first epistle of John, which tells us that it is God who has given to us the record of eternal life and that this life is in His Son (1 Jn. 5:11). John faithfully recorded what God the Holy Spirit gave to him, just as in the book of Revelation.

Why? How can you possibly know that these different works are all from the same hand?

If you read the texts in their original language it would be quite apparent that the author of the apocalypse could not possibly be one and the same person(s) as the writer(s) of the other Johanine works in the NT.

The conflation of authorship is a pious assumption not an established literary fact. Moreover, the coarse Greek style and numerous Semiticisms within the apocalypse of “John,” apart from its totally different social, theological and eschatological stances, are clear indications that it is not from the same author as the other works attributed to “John.”

Leaving aside the possibility, of course, that the writer was able to employ a fortuitous adaptation in style and language as it suited him rather like a novelist.

quote:

All the rest is pure conjecture and that too with a hidden agenda -- to prevent sinners from believing the Gospel and being saved.

Absolute nonsense! Rest assured; I have no “agenda” hidden or otherwise, nor indeed any nefarious intentions. As for “conjecture,” that term can likewise be readily applied to your own personal exegetical opinions.