"What did Jesus do?" - "New Yorker" article (5/24/2010)

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: This is one of the most compelling examples of what the author quoted at the beginning of this thread was talking about in terms of the Greek influence on the gospels. The following example really indicates that John was written from a Greek perspective and John the apostle is unlikely to be the author.

The book was certainly written in koine Greek, the common Greek of that day, but this is not evidence that the viewpoint of the writer is that of a Gentile. In fact, there is much in the Gospel of John, such as his knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs, which shows that the writer is Jewish. For another thing, the language is very simple, and is not at all like the polished Greek of Luke, whose Greek is representativce of a native speaker of the langauge. So it is likely written by someone whose primary language was almost certainly not Greek.

The evidence you've mentioned doesn't even come close to overuling the internal evidence supporting Johannine authorship, to say nothing of the testimony of historical witnesses, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, and others, who also ascribe the book to the disciple John "whom Jesus loved." There's much in the book which shows it was written by an eyewitness, such as his close attention to numbers and names.

Quote:

cardw: It also has some implications around the stories being made up from existing wisdom myths.

What's the strongest evidence for this? What "wisdom myths"? Can you show references for these myths or quote them, and show a direct relationship to John chapter 3?

Quote:

cardw: In John 3 we have Nicodemus coming to Jesus in the night in which Jesus says the following in verse 3...

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

In Greek this sets up a play on words. The word again in Greek can mean two things. It can mean again as in going back through the womb and be literally born again or it can mean above or in English born from above.

It's true the word in Greek can mean both "born afresh," or "born again," or "born from above." But does the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus require that this was said in those very same words? In other words, is it possible that Jesus used an Aramaic word which does not have a double meaning but only means "born again" or "born anew"?

Let's assume that Jesus used an Aramaic word meaning "born anew." If that's case, wouldn't Nicodemus still have misunderstood Christ to mean "born for the second time" instead of being born of the Spirit?

It's obvious Jesus didn't mean someone had to re-enter their mother's uterus in order to come out again. And we can be sure Nicoumeus understood this was not what Jesus meant. The Jews themselves at that time used that kind of language to refer to people who underwent a radical change.

Quote:

cardw: To use this aspect of the Greek word the writer of John has Nicodemus making the mistake of thinking Jesus meant born again from the womb. Nicodemus says...

"How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Assuming that Jesus spoke "Aramaic," what word do you believe he would have used here?

But what is your evidence that Jesus could not have used the Greek word anothen? Do you believe Jesus would not have known or used any Greek words at all? Notice John 12: 20-23 where it seems apparent that Jesus communicated with some Greek speakers.

Check out the following:

Quote:

A prevalent language spoken in ancient (c. 1200-200 BC) Palestine was Biblical Hebrew. Near the beginning of the third-century BC, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic ("Hebrew Language"). In our Savior's day, Aramaic and Greek were the predominant languages of Palestine. http://www.wynter.ca/first%20century%20ad%20palestine.htm

This would certainly indicate that it was likely Jesus knew some Greek. After all, Jesus traveled through Greek-speaking areas, and must have been able to communicate with the people living in those places. His entire purpose was to proclaim the good news to them, and so it makes sense He would have learned something of their language.

Also notice that when Christ was crucified, the inscription nailed to the cross above his head was written in Greek, which is strong evidence that Greek was a language that many people in that area at that time understood. Otherwise it would not have made sense to write it in Greek. All three languages were understood by the people, and Christ is likely to have understood and spoken at least some of each those languages. I believe that's an entirely reasonable conclusion on the basis of what we know of that area during the first century.

Do you have strong evidence or proof that this is mistaken?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Isn't prophecy a sign? So you're saying that we don't need any signs? And wouldn't a sign be considered evidence?

"...Prophecy, however, is for the benefit of believers, not unbelievers. "1 Corinthians 14:23 NLT

The context of this statement was made when speaking in unknown tongues as a sign was an issue. However since it seems your purpose to punch holes in all of the messages from the Word is here put on display, it seems detrimental to the possibility of any individual, save God Himself, to break through your resistance to His pleading for your soul. At least He hasn't given me the patience to bear with your reticence to see the Word as revealing ought to you except the necessity to express foolhardy ridicule. May God have mercy on your soul.

That's a pretty big claim to speak for god. Maybe it has nothing to do with reticence or resistance at all. Maybe it's because it has no basis in reality. You treat the words of the Bible as if they have some kind of magical quality. In actuality it doesn't take much to punch holes in claims of talking snakes, parting of seas, striking of rocks, walking on water, etc. etc. There is no credible evidence that these ever happened.

If prophecy is only for believers then it is only useful for the already convinced and has nothing to do with proof or evidence.

Why would the already convinced need prophecy anyway?

And it's interesting that you have to ASK god to have mercy.

[cardw]

Quote:

Assuming that Jesus spoke "Aramaic," what word do you believe he would have used here?

But what is your evidence that Jesus could not have used the Greek word anothen? Do you believe Jesus would not have known or used any Greek words at all?

The point is Jesus has no compelling reason to use greek to talk to Nicodemus and the story only works if you have the play on words.

The implication is that this story never happened.

[cardw]

Quote:

The evidence you've mentioned doesn't even come close to overuling the internal evidence supporting Johannine authorship, to say nothing of the testimony of historical witnesses, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, and others, who also ascribe the book to the disciple John "whom Jesus loved." There's much in the book which shows it was written by an eyewitness, such as his close attention to numbers and names.

None of this is remarkable if the story was being made up.

Now it's interesting that you quote these early Church writers for verification of this book, but you certainly wouldn't accept all that they have to say about Jesus. The evidence and testimony of the 1st century is a mess of inconsistency.

Now I outlined how mythology entered into the narrative in my blog post, so I'm not going to repeat that here. And you have D.M. Murdock's whole 600 page book with over 900 references.

This narrative and story making was common in the 1st through 3rd century. Why do you think there were so many different gospels?