Re: DaVinci Mania
- From: McDuck <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 01:02:31 -0400
On 20 May 2006 14:39:45 -0700, john.vampatella@xxxxxxxxx quacked:
Church history is a dangerous area for some of the faithful. Many
Christians, for example, think that John the Apostle is the same John
as the person credited with writing John's Gospel. This "eye witness"
aspect is important to their belief. They would not be happy with a
novel that actually got that point right, and understandably so.
There are many good reasons to accept the notion that John the Apostle
wrote the fourth gospel. There are also reasons to question it. It is
dubious for you to flatly declare (as it appears you're doing) that the
true history demonstrates that John the Apostle didn't write the fourth
gospel. I mean, it's very easy to declare that....quite another thing
to prove it.
Not that I'm asking you to, b/c I'm not all that interested in that
kind of discussion. But to throw it out there like that is akin to a
drive-by shooting. (metaphorically speaking, of course)
I've read a lot of the history of that period, and I've never heard
any historian, based on historical information, not religion, claim
solid evidence for the traditional view that John's Gospel was written
by the Apostle. Now, a lot of religious people make that claim, based
on so-called internal evidence, but that religious claim has little to
do with history.
Most secular historians (all I've seen) argue that John's Gospel
probably was written long after the death of Jesus --- probably around
100-110 A.D., perhaps later, even a lot later. (By secular
historians, I simply mean those basing their position on historical
evidence, not religion. They may well be religious, and many are.)
There is some evidence that the version we have is based on prior
writings of a much earlier date (perhaps as early as 55 AD), and those
writings, if they existed, possibly could have come from the Apostle
or from some other eye witness (that is, the timing would be right).
But we do not know for sure if there were earlier versions, other than
from internal evidence, and obviously we cannot say as a matter of
history that they existed or who wrote them.
I think that an historical account that accurately discussed the
above, adding whatever points you think might be appropriate, would be
viewed as blasphemous by many believers. That is, they are not aware
that most historians, at a minimum, have serious doubts that John's
gospel was written early enough to plausibly have been written by the
Apostle. They would not be happy to know that it probably was written
in stages and heavily edited.
I'm never happy with a Pedro loss (unless to the RS), but to NYY is
Now, how about the fact that the freakin' Mets blew a 4-0 lead in the
9th against the Yankees?? That's *real* history that makes me sick to
triple bad. No comment on the bad toe.
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: SHUT DOWN BOTH BORDERS!!
- Next by Date: Re: OT: SHUT DOWN BOTH BORDERS!!
- Previous by thread: Re: DaVinci Mania
- Next by thread: Re: DaVinci Mania