DagoodS Multiplies His Errors

DagoodS has posted more about the authorship of John's gospel, in the form of a comment in his original thread. He's responding to somebody who replied to him there, but some of his comments are relevant to my response to him as well. I'm not going to address everything DagoodS has written in his latest post, since he was writing in response to somebody else and since so many of his arguments have already been answered in sources he could easily have consulted. See here, for example, or consult the material on John's gospel produced by Craig Keener, D.A. Carson, Leon Morris, Craig Blomberg, and other conservative scholars. DagoodS has a record of making claims without doing much research on the relevant subjects. He ignores large amounts of evidence against his position, he makes unreasonable demands of the Biblical authors, and when he's refuted on one point, he moves on to another argument with the same sort of reasoning that led him to an error on the previous point.

His latest post repeats the same sort of unreasonable demands he often makes of the Biblical authors:

"We would then need to develop a methodology for why John included what he did that correlates with the synpotics....Despite the vast differences [between the Synoptics and John], there ARE some similarities (due to a common oral story) and you would need to defend the Gospel writer’s actions as to why he choose some, and not others (other than 'I don’t know') especially in light of the fact that he deliberately failed to choose some that would have conformed to his theme, but choose others that did not....While you may call them 'new' accounts, you would also have to develop a system, or method as to why the pervious accounts, with their emphasis and focus, would not use them....My proposal, that the author of the Gospel of John did not know the Synoptic Jesus, but only knew the tale trough oral tradition, answers these problems. Your solution, that the author included things that were known to not be in the Synoptics, introduces problems, as to why the Synoptics would not have included them, and why Jesus is portrayed in such a different manner, comparing the two."

Steve Hays, in a previous reply to DagoodS on another subject, has already addressed his ridiculous demand that we produce a "system" that will explain why Biblical authors wrote what they wrote. Historians don't make such a demand regarding non-Biblical authors, so why should we make that demand with regard to the Biblical authors? And why does DagoodS think that there's a "theme" John and other authors would have followed? They could have had more than one objective in writing a document. Even if one theme was dominant, others could be taken up along the way. Authors will use some of the material they're familiar with when they compose a document, but they may be unable to include everything they know or may not want to include everything.

An example I've mentioned before is the resurrection appearance to James, which was well known (1 Corinthians 15:7). None of the gospel authors mention it. We don't conclude that they therefore must not have known about it, and we don't need a system that will explain to us why each author decided not to include the resurrection appearance to James. There are many possible explanations, and we don't have to know which one is correct in order for the correctness of one of them to be plausible. DagoodS tells us that "I don't know" isn't a sufficient answer, but historians don't reject the historicity of an account in Josephus or Tacitus, for example, just because they don't know why the author chose to include that account or why he didn't include other accounts of a similar nature that he could have included. Christians don't say "I don't know" in the sense of not being able to think of any possibility. Rather, they say it in the sense of not having much evidence by which to reach a conclusion about which possibility is the best one. Historians do the same with non-Biblical authors.

With regard to the passages on love in the gospels, every gospel author would have thought of the love of Jesus as the greatest example of love by logical implication. John quotes Jesus' comments on the subject, which makes sense given the emphasis John places on the theme of love, but we have no reason to conclude that the other gospel authors would have included the same material if it was historical. There's no reason to think that they intended to record everything Jesus said about love, and none of the gospel authors considered their gospel the only source of information on Jesus' life that people would have. Mark would have known about the resurrection appearances of 1 Corinthians 15, for example, even though he doesn't include them in his gospel. John would have known that information about Jesus' infancy was available, even though he doesn't include it in his gospel. Etc. If Matthew's audience could be expected to know that Jesus' love was the greatest example of love they could emulate, then why would Matthew think there was a need for him to include Jesus' statement to that effect in his gospel? He might include it anyway, despite no need for including it, but its absence doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that he must have been ignorant of what Jesus said.

"You indicate this is a 'new' requirement [in John 13:34-35]. What was the 'old' requirement? What was the old type of love they were to use, when loving God, loving their neighbor, and loving their enemies? Before, were they NOT to love as Jesus loved them? Were they stumped as to what type of love to use up until Jesus described it at the Last Supper? This makes no sense that for the first time Jesus actually described the type of love they were to use, and that is what makes it 'new.' Again, is it now greater than the previous commandments, or less?"

John 13:34-35 is about loving other people, not loving God. Love of God remained the greatest commandment. But Jesus gave us the greatest example of love. Having a better example than was previously available would heighten the commandment in that sense, but concepts such as loving God with all your heart and loving others as yourself would have been understandable to people prior to our having Jesus' example. And as I said in my first reply to DagoodS, the commandment could still be referred to as "new" even if it began weeks, months, or years earlier. The concept of imitating Jesus' love would be a logical implication that probably would have occurred to the early Christians even without Jesus' mentioning of it, but He did mention it on the occasion John is narrating. John has a lot of interest in the theme of love, so he mentions it. Other gospel writers were focusing on other themes and had already mentioned some of the general principles related to love, so why would they need to include Jesus' statement of John 13 in their accounts? There's no need for it.

"My proposal, that the author of the Gospel of John did not know the Synoptic Jesus, but only knew the tale trough oral tradition, answers these problems."

The "problems" DagoodS mentions aren't of much significance. And to accept his solution to those alleged problems, you have to accept far more significant problems with that solution. You have to conclude that the external sources commenting on authorship were nearly universally wrong, despite the presence of John's disciples for something like 60 years after John's death. You have to conclude that all of the manuscripts with John's name on them are wrong. You have to conclude that the absence of the "Baptist" qualifier for John the Baptist has nothing to do with the author's identity as John the apostle. You have to reject the most natural reading of John 21:24 and the implications that follow from the beloved disciple's close relations with Peter. Etc. In other words, DagoodS wants us to solve his proposed problems by accepting far worse problems.

"Can you explain why, after Jesus had told them to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost (Luke 24:48) that they were out in Galilee fishing [in John 21]? Or, why they were hopping back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem, if you take Matt. 28:16 as before Luke? )"

How does DagoodS know that John 21 is supposed to have occurred after Luke 24:48? He doesn't. Luke tells us that a timespan of 40 days was involved (Acts 1:3), so his accounts in Luke 24 have to involve telescoping. That sort of compressing of events is common in both ancient and modern literature. It would be a logical conclusion even if Acts 1:3 had never been written, but since Luke does give us that indication that he was compressing the events, DagoodS' reading is even more inexcusable.

As far as "hopping back and forth" is concerned, that sort of travel was common, especially for occupational reasons or for the purpose of religious observance. Luke 24 refers to an appearance to people traveling, John 21 refers to some of the disciples going fishing (an occupation of some of the apostles), etc. We don't know all of the reasons why the people traveled as they did, but why would we need to know? And why use a term like "hopping"? The appearances occurred over a span of weeks, not hours, so the people involved wouldn't have needed to be "hopping" in order to do some traveling during that timeframe.

Mark doesn't address the resurrection appearances aside from referring to an appearance in the future (Mark 16:7). That leaves us with the other three gospels. Of those three, Matthew and John agree that Jesus appeared in both Jerusalem (Matthew 28:9, John 20:14) and Galilee (Matthew 28:16, John 21:1). Luke doesn't mention Galilee, but that makes sense in light of his focus on Jerusalem in Acts. As J.P. Holding notes:

"More likely is that Luke has arranged things this way in order to emphasize Jerusalem as Jesus' destination, and in Acts, as the center for the spreading of the Gospel (Acts follows a pattern in which the Gospel is spread from Jerusalem in ever-wider geographical circles, even as people return to that city; cf. Acts 11:2, 12:15, 15:2, 18:21, 19:1 and 21, 20:16)."

Most scholars think that Luke knew about Mark's gospel and used it as a source he considered reliable, and Mark's gospel mentions Jesus' post-resurrection presence in Galilee (Mark 16:7). Luke would have known about at least one of the appearances in Galilee, even though he focuses on Jerusalem.

"If it [the witness in John 19:35] IS the author, this sounds quite a bit like, 'And I am telling the truth. I am NOT lying.' Which gives us reason to be cautious."

Once again, DagoodS hasn't done enough research. As Craig Blomberg explains:

"That an author could refer to himself with the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (lit. 'that one'; NIV 'he') is demonstrated by Josephus in War 3.202." (The Historical Reliability Of John's Gospel [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001], p. 255)

Craig Keener cites other evidence supporting the same conclusion, such as other extra-Biblical sources who use the third person to refer to themselves and the fact that John's gospel sometimes has Jesus speaking of Himself in the third person (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 2 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 1154-1155). Furthermore, John 19:35 concludes by saying that the testimony is being given "so that you also may believe". The language is reminiscent of John 20:31, where the author is the one who is writing in order to bring people to faith. John 21:24 tells us that the beloved disciple is the author, and John 1:14 could be a reference to the author's eyewitness status as well. Perhaps John 1:14 isn't intended as a reference to his eyewitness status, but the possibility that he is an eyewitness in that passage weakens the force of DagoodS' appeal to the third person in chapter 19. The gospel uses both the first person and the third person, as do other ancient authors. Given the testimony of John 21:14 and the many other lines of evidence we have for Johannine authorship, DagoodS' appeal to John 19:35 is weak.

Though the phrase "I am telling the truth. I am not lying." doesn't appear in John's gospel, it's worth noting that DagoodS is wrong about that phrase as well. When the apostle Paul used that phrase (Romans 9:1, 1 Timothy 2:7), he was using a common rhetorical device for introducing the testimony of a witness (Ben Witherington with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter To The Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 249-250). There's no implication that Paul had a history of lying. Even if he had been suspected of lying in some circles, such as among the Judaizers, it doesn't logically follow that such people had good reason for their suggestion that Paul was a liar. Does DagoodS want to suggest that in Romans 9:1, for example, Paul wasn't actually concerned for his fellow Jews? Not only does the evidence suggest that such doubt of Paul's testimony is unwarranted, but even if we had no such evidence, how could DagoodS possibly be confident that Paul was being dishonest?

"He says he is an eyewitness in John 1:14. Actually he says he was a witness to 'his Glory.' Odd, then, that he did not include the transfiguration in his Gospel."

The glory in view in John 1:14 is a glory that was involved in Jesus' life in general. John goes on to discuss some of the details of that life. Mentioning the Mount of Transfiguration wouldn't be necessary for illustrating the type of glory he had in view. And I would remind the readers of the implausibility of DagoodS' suggestion that the author of the fourth gospel was ignorant of both the Synoptic gospels and the traditions behind them. See my discussion of the subject in my original reply to DagoodS. The concept that the author of the fourth gospel didn't know about the Mount of Transfiguration is ridiculous.

We have a large amount of internal and external evidence for John's authorship of the fourth gospel, evidence DagoodS has failed to refute or even address. Stringing together a series of weak arguments based on internal evidence (John doesn't cite the Synoptic passages on love, etc.) can't overturn the nearly universal external testimony, the universal manuscript evidence, etc. As I said before, what DagoodS is doing is trying to overturn a combination of strong internal evidence and strong external evidence by appealing to weak internal evidence.