Comments on The Secular Outpost: Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part ...

Response to David B Marshall... Sorry about your ...

2012-01-14T02:45:56.995-06:00

Response to David B Marshall...

Sorry about your responses getting lost. That is frustrating.

I will be interested in your responses whenever you find the time to write them out again.

Brad: I meant to respond to your most recent comme...

2012-01-07T13:59:45.690-06:00

Brad: I meant to respond to your most recent comments, and actually did so -- then lost what I wrote. It looks like I'll be busy for a bit, now, but hopefully I'll have time to address your arguments later.

As to the author of Mark, the ESV Study Bible intr...

2012-01-06T22:37:52.576-06:00

As to the author of Mark, the ESV Study Bible introduction to Mark says:

Widespread evidence from the early church fathers affirms that Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to his attendant and writer, John Mark. Of particular significance in this regard are the brief statements by Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis; c. a.d. 120), preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (260–340). Papias states that he received oral tradition from John the elder and apostle, and he passes on the following regarding Mark: (1) he was the writer for Peter; (2) he wrote down accurately as much as he could remember of Peter’s words, which the latter had adapted to the needs of the moment; (3) he was not an eyewitness of Jesus, nor a disciple (but see note on Mark 14:52); and (4) it was his desire not to omit or misrepresent anything. Papias concluded that the Gospel of Mark gains its apostolic and reliable character from its Petrine origin (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1–2; 3.39.14–16).

Internal evidence also supports the Patristic testimony that Peter stands behind Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s account is especially vivid when recounting incidents involving Peter. It presents the weaknesses of Peter, as well as the disciples as a whole, and omits praiseworthy or noticeable references to Peter reported in Matthew and Luke. It has also been observed that there exists a certain structural proximity between Peter’s Caesarea speech (Acts 10:34–43) and the Gospel of Mark.

When it comes to evaluating the authenticity of th...

2012-01-06T22:33:48.617-06:00

When it comes to evaluating the authenticity of the Gospels I think we must think about embarrassing sections in the Gospels. These are sections that are unlikely faked because they would cause difficulties with the early church. One of those sections would be the betrayal of Jesus by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot. Another would be Peter, one of church pillars, denying that he knew Jesus three times while Jesus was being crucified. Another would be that women followers of Jesus were the first to see that Jesus tomb was empty. Women’s testimony was not even accepted in legal proceedings in Jewish society. If the Gospel accounts were made up then it doesn’t make sense to have women be the witnesses of Jesus’ burial and be first people to see the empty tomb. It would have made much more sense to have men be the first to see the empty tomb if the Gospels were faked.

Another important epistle is 1 Peter, particularly...

2012-01-06T22:06:43.717-06:00

Another important epistle is 1 Peter, particularly in light of what Paul says about him in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. In 1 Peter 1:3-5 Peter writes, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Here Peter confirms his belief in the resurrection from the dead. Then in 1 Peter 5:1 he confirms that he witnessed Jesus’ punishment when he says, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed…” So, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and 1 Peter confirm the Gospel accounts that say that Peter is a firsthand witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that Peter truly believed that he observed Jesus walking around after his crucifixion and burial.

This is important when we consider what Paula wrot...

2012-01-06T22:06:23.178-06:00

This is important when we consider what Paula wrote in Galatians 1:11-19:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Paul’s conversion was around A.D. 33-34, so this means that Paul met up with Peter and James the brother of Jesus around A.D. 36-37 just six or seven years after Jesus’ death and post mortem appearances. This also means that Paul, Peter and James had a chance to talk about the Gospel and church doctrine. It also lends credence to Paul’s claim that Peter and James say that Jesus appeared to them after his crucifixion. During Paul’s 15 day stay at Jerusalem he would have had a chance to talk with them about Jesus’ crucifixion and post mortem appearances.

Then in Galatians 2:1-2 and 6-10 Paul writes:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain… And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

This means that 14 years (around A.D. 44-47) after Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem he comes back to meet with Peter, John and James the brother of Jesus to make sure that his Gospel message is correct. The three church pillars and witnesses to Jesus life, death and resurrection confirm that Paul’s message is correct.

I think we also must weigh information gleaned fro...

2012-01-06T22:05:25.544-06:00

I think we also must weigh information gleaned from the epistles particularly 1 Corinthians (written around A.D. 53-55) and Galatians (written around A.D. 48) which are unanimously accepted as being authentic Pauline texts. These letters give credence to the Gospel accounts. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul writes:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

First of all, Paul says that he received his information. Paul is likely quoting an early church teaching that goes back to about five years after the death of Jesus. Paul likely received this teaching when he visited Jerusalem around A.D. 36. This teaching would have come from people that surrounded Jesus’ ministry.
Second Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to Cephas or Peter and to James the brother of Jesus.

The probability that Peter's sermons were a ma...

2012-01-05T14:06:31.963-06:00

The probability that Peter's sermons were a main source of information used by the author of the second Gospel (called 'Mark') is somewhat higher than my estimate above, becuase even if this Gospel was not written by the 'Mark' mentioned by Papias, it could have been written by someone else who listened to the sermons of Peter.

I will do a more careful analysis of the probability in a short post.

"You mistakenly assume that because I say som...

2012-01-04T13:09:44.055-06:00

"You mistakenly assume that because I say something is "probably" the case, what follows will necessarily give all my reasons for thinkin so."

No, I did not make that assumption. I did, however, assume that given the short space of a comment thread you would provide reasons you found particularly powerful. I was merely pointing out that the reasons you gave either were appeals to possibility or were not significant probability raisers (at least in my eyes, but that's up for debate). I'm not looking for a long debate on the subject, but I did want to point out that given an initial asseriton by you regarding probability, you've since done virtually nothing to bolster that claim.

David B Marshall said... Brad: Again, the positio...

2012-01-03T11:28:38.224-06:00

David B Marshall said...

Brad: Again, the position I was objecting to was that we know that none of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. We don't know that, as you now seem to admit.
=============
Response:

You are correct. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and we don't know that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus.

We also don't know that Jesus was an actual historical person, nor that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem in the first half of the first century.

We have only probabilities concerning Jesus and the Gospels, and the probabilities almost never reach the level required for knowledge.

The author of Mark never claims to be an eyewitness, never claims to be 'Mark', never claims to have heard the sermons of Peter, and never attributes any of his information to eyewitness testimony.

If Papias was correct that a man named 'Mark' heard and wrote down some of the sermons of Peter but was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, and if Eusibius was correct in identifying this 'Mark' as the author of the 2nd Gospel (now called 'Mark'), and if the Roman trial, crucifixion, and burial stories in 'Mark' are based mainly on information from Peter's sermons, then (a) Mark was not an eyewitness, and (b) the primary source of the Roman trial, crucifixion, and burial stories in Mark are probably NOT based on eyewitness testimony, since Peter was probably not present for those events.

Papias did not have firsthand knowledge of Mark, so we cannot be certain of his statements about Mark hearing and writting down material from Peter's sermons. I would give this a probability of about .8.

Papias does not identify 'Mark' as the author of the second Gospel. This identification was made later by others. Those who made this identification were even further removed from Mark and Peter, and many NT scholars view this as a second-century guess about the authorship of Mark. So, the identification of the 'Mark' mentioned by Papias as being the author of the second Gospel is merely probable, not very probable, so I would give the probability as .6, assuming that Papias was correct about there being a 'Mark' who wrote down sermons by Peter.

Even if the 'Mark' mentioned by Papias did write the second Gospel, he need not have based the Gospel primarily on Peter's sermons. Mark does not specify his sources. So, the probability that the second Gospel's stories about the Roman trial, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus are based primarily on Peter's sermons is less than very probable. I would give this a probability of .7, assuming that (a) there was a 'Mark' as described by Papias, and (b) this 'Mark' was the author of the second Gospel.

So, the probability that the stories of the Roman trial, crucifixion, and burial in the second Gospel were based primarily on information from Peter is
.8 x .6 x .7 = .336 or .3 (one significant figure).

It is probable that Peter was NOT an eyewitness to any of those three events. I would give a probability of .7 for that. This means that the probability that Peter was NOT an eyewitness to the Roman trial is about .9, and NOT an eyewitness to the crucifixion about .9, and NOT an eyewitness to the burial about .9 (.9 x .9 x .9 = .729 or .7 (one significant figure).

So, the probability that the crucifixion story in the second Gospel is based on eyewitness testimony from Peter is

.3 x .1 = .03

or 3 chances in 100.

Brad: Again, the position I was objecting to was t...

2012-01-02T13:01:57.567-06:00

Brad: Again, the position I was objecting to was that we know that none of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. We don't know that, as you now seem to admit.

(1) As for when the first descriptions of the gospels as eyewitness account appear, let's not neglect Luke himself:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished AMONG US, just as THOSE WHO FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES and servants of the word HAVE HANDED DOWN TO US, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order . . . "

And of course one of Luke's main sources is Mark. He seems to imply that (a) the events he will describe occured 'among' his sources, and others he has interviewed; (b) the earlier gospels, surely including Mark, were based on eyewitness accounts; and (c) he has done what he could to check up on these accounts.

Based on Acts and references by Paul, it seems almost certain that Luke was, in fact, in a position to obtain such first-hand accounts.

(2) Didache cites Matthean material quite a bit, and very early. I guess the canonical gospel mixes Luke / Mark and the original, which could be an eyewitness as well.

(3) Thomas cites every layer of gospel material, apparently. This suggests the books were accepted before Thomas was written.

Not that this is central to your point, but Mark a...

2011-12-31T22:51:30.492-06:00

Not that this is central to your point, but Mark and John do not agree on what day the crucifixion took place. Mark has him tried and executed on the morning of the Passover, and John has him tried and executed the day before. I'm told that the author of John moved the day back by one so that Jesus would die at the same time as the lambs would have been being sacrificed in the Temple, thus--at least to an observant Jewish audience--the Lamb of God connection couldn't be more clear.

Many leading NT scholars doubt or reject the tradi...

2011-12-31T14:07:05.347-06:00

Many leading NT scholars doubt or reject the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospel now called 'Mark', so it is uncertain whether this Gospel was authored by a person who listened to the sermons of Peter.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that our Gospel called 'Mark' was written by a man who listened to sermons by Peter, an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, and that a significant portion of our Gospel called 'Mark' derives from the sermons of Peter.

Does this mean that the Passion narrative in Mark is based on eyewitness testimony?

There are at least two more problems here:

1. Which parts, if any, of the Passion narrative in Mark are based on sermons from Peter?

2. Was Peter an eyewitness to the Roman trial, the crucifixion, and/or burial of Jesus?

The answer to (1) is: We don't know.

The Gospel of Mark does not indicate specific sources for specific stories or details. So, even if Peter's sermons were a primary source for the Gospel of Mark in general, we don't know whether Peter's sermons were the basis for any given detail in the Passion narrative of Mark.

The answer to (2) is: probably not.

The Synoptic gospels do not place any of the twelve disciples of Jesus at the Roman trial, the crucifixion, or the burial. It is implied, and is intrinsically plausible, that the disciples went into hiding soon after Jesus was arrested, and that only some of the female followers of Jesus were present at the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

[The Fourth Gospel does place the 'Beloved Disciple' at the crucifixion, but it is unclear who this 'Beloved Disciple' is, and many leading NT scholars reject the traditional view that this person was John the son of Zebedee.]

So, (1) it is uncertain whether the Gospel of Mark was composed by a person who heard the sermons of Peter, and (2) even assuming this to be so, it is unknown whether any given detail in the Passion narratives is based upon information from a sermon delivered by Peter, and finally, (3) even if some details in the Passion narratives are assumed to be based upon information from a sermon delivered by Peter, that information is probably hearsay, since Peter was probably not present at the Roman trial, the crucifixion, and the burial of Jesus.

Assuming that there was an actual historical Jesus...

2011-12-31T13:41:27.755-06:00

Assuming that there was an actual historical Jesus of Nazareth, Peter was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.

But Peter did not write a Gospel.

According to Papias, there was a man named 'Mark' who was an 'interpreter' of Peter and who 'wrote down all that he [Peter] recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord.'

If Papias is correct, then there was an early written record of the sermons of Peter, which would have included various teachings of Jesus and events from the ministry of Jesus.

If Papias is correct, then the 'Mark' who wrote down information about Jesus from the sermons of Peter 'neither heard the Lord, nor was a follower of his'. So, if Papias is correct, then the man named 'Mark' who wrote down sermons from Peter, was not himself an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.

So, if our Gospel that is now called 'Mark' was in fact written by the 'Mark' referred to by Papias, and if the claims of Papias about this man are correct, then the Gospel of Mark was NOT written by an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.

If, however, Papias was mistaken, and the man called 'Mark' was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, then he might well have also been mistaken in his claim that 'Mark' knew Peter and wrote down the sermons of Peter.

For if Papias was mistaken about whether 'Mark' was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, then Papias probably did not know 'Mark' personally, and was getting his information about 'Mark' from an unreliable source, who passed on false information about 'Mark' to Papias.

Graham Stanton on the authorship of the Gospels: &...

2011-12-31T13:18:10.811-06:00

Graham Stanton on the authorship of the Gospels: "Today it is generally agreed that neither Matthew nor John was written by an apostle. And Mark and Luke may not have been associates of the apostles." (The Gospels and Jesus, p. 135)

I don't think David and I can settle the quest...

2011-12-31T13:03:46.522-06:00

I don't think David and I can settle the question of whether any of the Gospels was authored by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, given that NT scholars don't agree on this issue.

However, given that many leading NT scholars have rejected the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels, I don't see how one can be certain that any Gospel was written by an eyewitness.

Since there are also NT scholars who defend the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels, it is also difficult to be certain that no Gospel was written by an eyewitness.

David -

What probabilities would you give to the following claims?

1. The author of the Gospel of Mark was an eyewitness to the trials of Jesus.

2. The author of the Gospel of Mark was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

3. The author of the Gospel of Mark was an eyewitness to the burial of Jesus.

4. The author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness to the trials of Jesus.

5. The author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

6. The author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness to the burial of Jesus.

I will think about this too, and come up with my own probability estimations.

According to NT Wright, we don't know who the ...

2011-12-31T12:50:16.051-06:00

According to NT Wright, we don't know who the 'Beloved Disciple' is.

That means, we don't know whether John the son of Zebedee is the author of the Gospel that bears his name. That means that the fact that John the son of Zebedee was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus does not imply that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.

Of course, the unknown 'Beloved Disciple' might have been an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, but if we don't know who this person is, then we don't know whether the Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the minstry of Jesus.

Furthermore, many leading NT scholars believe that there was a 'Beloved Disciple' but that this person did not write the Fourth Gospel, but was instead the founder of an oral tradition that was later written down by followers of the 'Beloved Disciple'.

This explains why many of the lengthy sermons by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are really sermons about Jesus, unlike what we read in the other Gospels. The words put into the mouth of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel appear to be sermons by the 'Beloved Disciple' about Jesus, rather than words spoken by the historical Jesus himself.

According to NT Wright, we don't know who the ...

2011-12-31T12:50:15.223-06:00

David Marshall said... NT Wright's cited comm...

2011-12-31T12:38:41.676-06:00

David Marshall said...

NT Wright's cited comments do not undermine mine. (In fact they contradict Sanders, who says the gospels were named 100 years after their authorship -- Wright says 50.)
===========
Response:

Wright speaks of 'traditions' about the authorship of the Gospels going back to 50 years after the Gospels, while Sanders is talking about written references identifying the authors of the Gospels being absent for 'a period of one hundred years or so' after the composition of the Gospels.

So there is no direct contradiction between Wright and Sanders.

Papias is the earliest source dating to about 140 CE. Papias mentions Mark and Matthew. Mark supposedly writing down material from Peter's preaching, and Matthew writting down sayings of Jesus in the 'Hebrew dialect'.

If Mark was composed about 65 CE, then the Papias reference was about 75 years after the composition of Mark, which is halfway between Wright's 50 years and Sanders' 100 years.

If Matthew was composed about 85 CE, then the Papias reference was about 55 years after the composition of Matthew, which corresponds closely to Wright's 50 years, but not with Sanders' 100 years gap.

However, Papias' comment that Matthew wrote sayings of Jesus in the 'Hebrew dialect' does not fit with the Gospel of Matthew which is in Greek, and does not appear to be translated from Aramaic, which was probably the language used by Jesus.

Furthermore, Papias does not identify authors of our four Gospels, but rather he identifies early Christian scribes/authors. Even assuming that Papias was 100% correct, his comments only show that there were men named Mark and Matthew who wrote about the ministry of Jesus, not that the Gospels we now have were written by those two men.

Perhaps Sanders does not read the quotes from Papias as identifications of the authors of our Gospels that bear the names 'Mark' and 'Matthew', and so he would not date the first identification of the authors of those Gospels as going back to Papias.

The identification of the authors of those two Gospels may have taken place sometime after Papias, and the identification may even be the result of an early inference based on Papias' comments (such as Eusibius who recorded quotes from Papias makes).

David Marshall said... "Blomberg cites FF Br...

2011-12-30T22:46:56.321-06:00

David Marshall said...

"Blomberg cites FF Bruce, BF Westcost, and Leon Morris, on John's authorship."

==============
Response:

I agree that there are some NT scholars who defend the traditional view that the apostle John was the author or primary source for the Fourth Gospel.

However, many leading NT scholars have rejected this traditional view of the authorship of John, as well as the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels now called Matthew and Mark.

It is not just 'skeptical' scholars, such as those associated with the Jesus Seminar who reject the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels. Mainstream. liberal and conservative scholars doubt or reject the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels.

All right, here's Craig Blomberg's perspec...

2011-12-30T09:59:02.714-06:00

All right, here's Craig Blomberg's perspective on the authorship of John:

"In fact a strong case for the Apostle John's having written a substantial portion of the Fourth Gospel -- perhaps all but the closing verses -- can still be credibly defended. But the question of John's historical reliability depends surprisingly little on such a case. Recent Johannine scholarship has gone a long way towards undermining earlier skepticism by simply pointing out evidence for the bulk of the gospel relying on sources with highly accurate details about Palestinian geography, topography and religious custom."

Blomberg cites FF Bruce, BF Westcost, and Leon Morris, on John's authorship.

He then justifies his claims about John in some detail.

I cite these not as "evidence," but to indicate that my earlier remarks were not made in a critical vaccuum, and to show that the "appeal to authority" alone cannot justify a dogmatic "John did not write this gospel."

Brad: What I've read of Aristophanes did not r...

2011-12-29T22:03:56.377-06:00

Brad: What I've read of Aristophanes did not really seem to add a whole lot that was credible about Socrates; Plato seems far more believable. And I don't doubt that he is a very good general source for Socrates' life.

You're citing good scholars, and I commend you for that. I'm sure you recognize the limitations of that kind of argument, though. None of the citations you give actually much buttress your historical claim. Appeals to authority are effective and often useful short-cuts, but they are not themselves historical arguments.

Again, let me repeat my objection. I see no reason to assume that none of the gospels transmit eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Many of the citations you give are far removed from explaining why I or anyone else should.

I agree with the IVP quote. To what purpose did you give it? And then blurbs for the book? I can give nice blurbs to my books, too. It would be helpful if you were to connect your citations more closely to the points you mean to support by them.

But I apologize for making you do all the work -- I'm having trouble with my computer, and therefore can't access my own textbooks right now, using this one.

Mike: You mistakenly assume that because I say som...

2011-12-29T21:04:58.139-06:00

Mike: You mistakenly assume that because I say something is "probably" the case, what follows will necessarily give all my reasons for thinkin so. As I said, I wrote two books on the subject, and am not about to repeat all my reasons here. But what I said was enough to cast doubt on Brad's initial assertion, which is all I wanted to do.

Given four biographies of Jesus from the 1st Century, written with vivid and historical-sounding details about his life, and some hints within in the texts (especially John) that two of the authors were witness to at least some of the events, whatever scholars he may find to agree with him, based on primary texts, Brad has no warrant for denying the possibility that eyewitnesses were, in fact, the authors.

I'll see now what else he has added to attempt to buttress his case, though.

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels was published ...

2011-12-29T16:13:56.395-06:00

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels was published by IVP.

Editors of the Dictionary:

Joel B. Green (an expert on the death of Jesus and the Passion narratives).

Scot McKnight (professor of NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School).

Consulting editor: I. Howard Marshall (professor of NT at Univ. of Aberdeen in Scotland, and author of the book I Believe in the Historical Jesus)

Here is a comment on the Dictionary by conservative Evangelical scholar Murray Harris (of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School):

"IVP's stunning Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels... [will]provide an authoritative treatment of all the major historical and theological themes found in the four Gospels....The Dictionary will prove a spelendid tool not only for pastors and teachers but also for students and laypersons."

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels on author of t...

2011-12-29T16:01:55.718-06:00

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels on author of the Fourth Gospel:

"A common understanding of the Beloved Disciple is that he is a person who heard and followed Jesus, although he was not one of the Twelve. ...He exercised a role of leadership in one group of early Christian congregations, probably gathering a circle of disciples around him. One (or more) of his disciples wrote the Gospel, but who this author is remains unknown to us. He preserved,shaped and interpreted the witness of his master, the Beloved Disciple, who had in turn interpreted the teaching of the Master himself." ('John, Gospel of' by M.M. Thompson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.370)

"The Gospel presents the Beloved Disciple as the witness on which it is based, but not necessarily as its author." (p.370)