The series of comments on this post by r/SmartFool are washed up. In fairness, in part, he's citing scholars that are wrong, but he's also way stretching things on his own.
First, no, no first edition of John was written pre-70. The link he cites discusses the "Signs Gospel," which is NOT, and NOT CONSIDERED TO BE, an "early version of John." That's on him, period. "Quality contributor" my ass.
Second, in that first post, he next says:
(1) John is only source to mention a number of pools that were later destroyed and aren't mentioned by later Christian writings or Josephus. (2) has accurate geography and topography and seems to assume his readers know the details as well (3) Jewish customs and debates that were highly regular pre-70 AD are preserved in the gospel (4) features more Jewish festives that fit prior 70 AD and overall is the most Jewish gospel (5) Shows parallels to Josephus in how the priests would act toward messianic leaders (7) Further archeological evidence in the gospel such as Pilate’s Throne and the High Priest’s house are present (8) stone jars that are more prominent prior to 70 AD (9) The portrayal of Nicodemus is more typical prior to 70 AD.(10) Furthermore the portrayal of Jesus replacing the temple seem to suggest prior 70-AD and seems to have no knowledge of the temple's destruction unlike the other gospels (11) Jesus’s diologue with the Samartarian women implies that worship was happening both on Mt. Gerazin for the Samartians and at the temple for the Jews…this seems to imply pre-70 AD worship. (12) first edition (as mentioned) was heavily influenced by signs...this is the same focus Paul had when he said (Jews demand signs) in his letter to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians 1:22).
Problem? None of that is discussed in the Early Christian Gospels link about the Signs Gospel and that's the only link he has in the comment. So, he's violating rules.
Second, partially contra point 3? Per Yonathan Adler's new book on Jewish origins, per Part 3 of my review, none of the three big Jewish festivals, especially Pentecost and Sukkoth, were even semi-firmly established until Hasmonean times, and Sukkoth especially was probably still being tweaked into post-Temple Tanaaitic rabbinic times.
His second comment in the thread? Point 2 is horrible.
This was the brief story in 28:9-10, where Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (28:1), after having discovered the empty tomb and setting out to go on their way, encounter the risen Jesus. The account is quite similar to the narrative in John 20:14-18. Both of these reports (a) come after the discovery of the empty tomb and an angelophany (Matt 28:2-7; John 20:12-13); (b) record Jesus’ first resurrection appearance; (c) involve Mary Magdalene; (d) refer in one way or another to touching Jesus (Matthew: “took hold of his feet”; John: “do not hold me”); and (e) have Jesus commanding the woman or women to go and speak to “my brothers”
Reality? Matthew 28 and John 20 resurrection stories are nowhere near that close to being alike. Matthew has multiple women versus just Magdalene; Matthew has them grabbing Jesus feet vs him telling Magdalene not to. Matthew has them meeting Jesus first, at the empty tomb while John has her running to tell Peter first, then returning.
Points 3-4 in that thread likewise focus on just one verse here and there, where the content parallels aren't THAT close even if the structural ones are. And, it ignores the possible influence of oral tradition.
And, as far as this not being all his own? Yeah, he's referencing Dale Allison. That doesn't totally let you off the hook. Beyond text-critical developmental issues, Allison, definitely on the conservative end of NT critical scholarship (as conservative as a James McGrath or more) has reasons to push the Johannine-Matthean ties to tout an early John, IMO. Yeah, William Lane Craig may, for his own polemical reasons, overstate Allison on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. Or he may not. Anyway, the likes of Allison and McGrath strike me as fundagelical fellow travelers. They're certainly exemplars of the "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" mental stance, something that I rejected in knowing that I couldn't move from conservative Lutheranism to just stopping at liberal Lutheranism — even a truly more liberal theological version — in my deconversion process.
And, elsewhere? Smart Fool claims Luke is the linguistic elite of the NT world. He doesn't know what he's talkng about and presumably doesn't know Greek, either; that would actually be the author of Hebrews. Again, quality contributor my ass.
And, he's just wrong on Paul allegedly passing on a tradition about the Lord's Supper. Nope, Paul invented it.
And, this one is getting its own post.
And, I find out why he believes this shit. He's a conservative evangelical apologist, per this comment citing favorably Dale Allison. And ugh, he's also now a moderator. That means that site sucks more canal water.
No comments:
Post a Comment