The article makes some good points, but neglects others. Like many others who discuss this subject, Kostenberger and Stout address what Irenaeus and Eusebius said about Papias' relationship with John, but they don't address what the other ancient sources who commented on the subject said. And they don't mention that Eusebius was inconsistent on this point. There's a lot more patristic data that can be cited against Bauckham's conclusion than what Kostenberger and Stout mention.
For those who are interested, I wrote a review of Bauckham's book here, and it includes a discussion of who wrote the fourth gospel. And here's my response to Ben Witherington's theory that Lazarus was the author.
The author of the fourth gospel was a close disciple of Jesus, was close to Peter, was named John, and fished. Bauckham's theory doesn't just require a second John. It requires a second John who was similar to the son of Zebedee in a series of unusual ways.
Dionysius of Alexandria, around the middle of the third century, is the first extant historical source to appeal to the concept of a second John who was confused with the son of Zebedee. He had to rely on speculation. He had no historical tradition to cite. Neither does Bauckham.
While one can debate whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove who "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was, one thing is not debatable -- WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was not John, for that idea requires the Bible to contradict itself, which of course, the truth cannot do.
The erroneous, man-made John tradition comes from parroting the hearsay of NON-Bible sources, and it can be shown to be a false teaching by simply paying attention to the facts that are stated in the plain text of scripture.
Defenders of the John tradition will rush to change the subject from a discussion of the BIBLICAL evidence on this question because there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea -- (an easy enough claim to disprove if it is not true, just cite one verse!). Nevertheless, the Bible says what it says, and while many who only give lip-service to the authority of scripture rush to turn-a-deaf-ear to the offer of Biblical correction if it threatens to disproves one of their pet beliefs, God's word has managed to preserve the truth regarding the one whom "Jesus loved" despite men adding their ideas to the Bible.
And, if in fact the plain text of scripture can prove that the John idea is false, then the important thing that this reveals is that there is a huge problem with the Bible study method of all those who bought this false teaching and have been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and follow after hearsay (i.e., men who quote other men who quote still other men), rather than heeding the warning of Ps. 118:8 and doing as scripture urges - "prove all things".
"And, if in fact the plain text of scripture can prove that the John idea is false, then the important thing that this reveals is that there is a huge problem with the Bible study method of all those who bought this false teaching and have been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and follow after hearsay (i.e., men who quote other men who quote still other men), rather than heeding the warning of Ps. 118:8 and doing as scripture urges - 'prove all things'."
You're depending on sources outside of the Bible to judge what the words of the Bible mean. We define terms by their historical context, which includes extra-Biblical material.
And why should we think that extra-Biblical sources are unreliable? Do you trust what relatives and friends tell you? Do you trust the eyesight you use to read the Bible? Why? Those are extra-Biblical sources.
It's true that a comment on New Testament authorship from a source like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus generally isn't as valuable as a comment from an earlier source, like the New Testament documents themselves. But a source's testimony can be less valuable, yet still have some value.
The article makes some good points, but neglects others. Like many others who discuss this subject, Kostenberger and Stout address what Irenaeus and Eusebius said about Papias' relationship with John, but they don't address what the other ancient sources who commented on the subject said. And they don't mention that Eusebius was inconsistent on this point. There's a lot more patristic data that can be cited against Bauckham's conclusion than what Kostenberger and Stout mention.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are interested, I wrote a review of Bauckham's book here, and it includes a discussion of who wrote the fourth gospel. And here's my response to Ben Witherington's theory that Lazarus was the author.
The author of the fourth gospel was a close disciple of Jesus, was close to Peter, was named John, and fished. Bauckham's theory doesn't just require a second John. It requires a second John who was similar to the son of Zebedee in a series of unusual ways.
Dionysius of Alexandria, around the middle of the third century, is the first extant historical source to appeal to the concept of a second John who was confused with the son of Zebedee. He had to rely on speculation. He had no historical tradition to cite. Neither does Bauckham.
While one can debate whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove who "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was, one thing is not debatable -- WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was not John, for that idea requires the Bible to contradict itself, which of course, the truth cannot do.
ReplyDeleteThe erroneous, man-made John tradition comes from parroting the hearsay of NON-Bible sources, and it can be shown to be a false teaching by simply paying attention to the facts that are stated in the plain text of scripture.
Defenders of the John tradition will rush to change the subject from a discussion of the BIBLICAL evidence on this question because there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea -- (an easy enough claim to disprove if it is not true, just cite one verse!). Nevertheless, the Bible says what it says, and while many who only give lip-service to the authority of scripture rush to turn-a-deaf-ear to the offer of Biblical correction if it threatens to disproves one of their pet beliefs, God's word has managed to preserve the truth regarding the one whom "Jesus loved" despite men adding their ideas to the Bible.
And, if in fact the plain text of scripture can prove that the John idea is false, then the important thing that this reveals is that there is a huge problem with the Bible study method of all those who bought this false teaching and have been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and follow after hearsay (i.e., men who quote other men who quote still other men), rather than heeding the warning of Ps. 118:8 and doing as scripture urges - "prove all things".
bk said:
ReplyDelete"And, if in fact the plain text of scripture can prove that the John idea is false, then the important thing that this reveals is that there is a huge problem with the Bible study method of all those who bought this false teaching and have been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and follow after hearsay (i.e., men who quote other men who quote still other men), rather than heeding the warning of Ps. 118:8 and doing as scripture urges - 'prove all things'."
You're depending on sources outside of the Bible to judge what the words of the Bible mean. We define terms by their historical context, which includes extra-Biblical material.
And why should we think that extra-Biblical sources are unreliable? Do you trust what relatives and friends tell you? Do you trust the eyesight you use to read the Bible? Why? Those are extra-Biblical sources.
It's true that a comment on New Testament authorship from a source like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus generally isn't as valuable as a comment from an earlier source, like the New Testament documents themselves. But a source's testimony can be less valuable, yet still have some value.