Steven Avery
Administrator
Patristics for Protestants
What do you all think about George van Kooten's new article on the dating of John's Gospel. found here: https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/67/3/article-p310_2.pdf
How would you date John's Gospel and why would you give it that said dating?
Is it Mark Goodacre that argues for a new perspective on Early John based on previously ignored intertextuality between John and the synoptics
I think John's Gospel and letters together are the only canonical texts after 70. E. Earle Ellis persuaded me in his 'The Making of the New Testament.' The Revelation is earlier; it is his first canonical text, kinda equivalent to Paul's vision of the third heaven reported to the Corinthians and effectively a prophetic commission. We hear from Patristic writers that John lived until the end of the century, and I assume John's Gospel was a product of many years, from his decades looking after Mary to his final years, probably back in Turkey. His Gospel appears designed to complement the other versions. But I have no time for the liberal (aka Gnostic) tradition that sees this Gospel teaching a 'spiritual', even Docetic portrait of Christ. I read it as uniquely earthed and vivid, geographically and historically highly specific, depicting the eyewitness account it claims to be. It's very Jewish; more Hebraic than Paul who was a Hellenistic Jew. Even more than the others this writer is thinking in Hebrew but writing in Greek. I have little time for the tradition of John the Presbyter and all that, which for me is a confusion of the composition with the transmission. My view is that John was later heavily involved not only with writing this Gospel, but with collating the canon: a tradition carried on by his disciples, around Polycarp in Turkey. To me it seems probable that Chris 'preserved' John beyond the rest of the Twelve with the specific commission to collate the canon. I see his Gospel as the capstone of that arch, almost like the cover of a printed book, its preface and foreword to orientate the reader as an editor's version.
What do you all think about George van Kooten's new article on the dating of John's Gospel. found here: https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/67/3/article-p310_2.pdf
How would you date John's Gospel and why would you give it that said dating?
Is it Mark Goodacre that argues for a new perspective on Early John based on previously ignored intertextuality between John and the synoptics
I think John's Gospel and letters together are the only canonical texts after 70. E. Earle Ellis persuaded me in his 'The Making of the New Testament.' The Revelation is earlier; it is his first canonical text, kinda equivalent to Paul's vision of the third heaven reported to the Corinthians and effectively a prophetic commission. We hear from Patristic writers that John lived until the end of the century, and I assume John's Gospel was a product of many years, from his decades looking after Mary to his final years, probably back in Turkey. His Gospel appears designed to complement the other versions. But I have no time for the liberal (aka Gnostic) tradition that sees this Gospel teaching a 'spiritual', even Docetic portrait of Christ. I read it as uniquely earthed and vivid, geographically and historically highly specific, depicting the eyewitness account it claims to be. It's very Jewish; more Hebraic than Paul who was a Hellenistic Jew. Even more than the others this writer is thinking in Hebrew but writing in Greek. I have little time for the tradition of John the Presbyter and all that, which for me is a confusion of the composition with the transmission. My view is that John was later heavily involved not only with writing this Gospel, but with collating the canon: a tradition carried on by his disciples, around Polycarp in Turkey. To me it seems probable that Chris 'preserved' John beyond the rest of the Twelve with the specific commission to collate the canon. I see his Gospel as the capstone of that arch, almost like the cover of a printed book, its preface and foreword to orientate the reader as an editor's version.
Last edited:
], you gotta be honest about Colossians 4:10-14 and Philemon 1:24, where Paul also mentions Mark and Luke together.
