On May 13, 1:40 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:ff77af82-3e8d-4fb6-b374-b9bb014b85aa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Chuck, any idea of why these anti-Pauline proponents are unwilling and
> > unable to explain why and how Luke, the disciples present at the time
> > and especially the Holy Spirit all accepted Paul as a true apostle of
> > Jesus Christ? You may wish to take the question rhetorically because I
> > can easily see you coming to the same or very similar conclusion that
> > I have reached.
>
> Because they can't, and that's no knock on them, because no one can.
What
> brands them as uncritical propagandists is their insistence in believing
> in
> SPITE of all the evidence there is against that belief.
>
> I just ran across something interesting, written by Daniel Wallace (NT
> scholar) concerning the Gospel of John. I wanted to go over all the
> arguments there are for the dating of the gospel primarily, but stumbled
> across Wallaces's argument for John's gospel being testimony to John's
> acceptance of Paul's apostolic authority! This comes amid his argument
> for
> a 60's dating of the gospel; something I didn't accept as late as last
> year,
> but am now in the process of re-evaluating. Here's the pertinent part
of
> the essay. I wanted to include the footnotes, and have added them at
the
> end, keeping their numbers as they appear in the essay...
>
> "As for the occasion, the catalyst for this gospel must be seen in
chapter
> 21. The likelihood (though disputed by some) that this book already
tidily
> ends with 20:31, only to be resumed again in chapter 21, should be a
major
> signal: John had finished the work, but felt compelled to add a final
> chapter before publication. We believe that the gospel went through at
> least
> three stages of composition: primitive diary which John made while with
> Jesus; [41] a virtually finished version which lacked the prologue
> (1:1-18)
> and the epilogue (ch. 21) as well as, perhaps, other incidental
comments;
> and the final edition, in which chapter 21 was appended. This major seam
> indicates the urgency with which this gospel was manufactured in its
> present
> form. Chapter 21 is occupied with one principal concern: the death of
> Peter.
> Without elaborating in too great a detail, our hypothesis is that after
> the
> death of Paul (summer of 64), the remaining apostles felt it necessary
to
> communicate to Paul's churches in order to make sure that they knew how
> they
> felt about Paul's gospel. Peter wrote one letter, then another. John was
> putting on the fini****ng touches of his gospel for Paul's churches
(since
> the churches of Asia Minor had none and since Paul did not know Christ
> according to the flesh) when Peter was arrested. John had intended
merely
> to
> end the gospel at chapter 20, as seems obvious. What made him add the
> final
> chapter? We believe that 2 Peter 1:15 gives the clue: "Now I am eager
that
> each of you have a memorial of these things after my departure." This
> cryptic verse has been interpreted in many ways, but whatever it refers
to
> it is fairly clear that some sort of posthumous do***ent written by
other
> than Peter is in mind. The immediate antecedent is v. 14 where Peter
> refers
> to his own impending death-a death which was even revealed by Christ. Is
> it
> possible that the memorial of "these things" is John 21-an appendix
which
> Peter (knowing that John was writing a gospel to Paul's churches in Asia
> Minor) requested John at the last minute to "work in" to his gospel? The
> reason for such would be obvious: these churches had just lost Paul and
> now
> were going to lose their apostle-in-writing, Peter. Why shouldn't they
> give
> up the faith? Because even Peter's death was within the sovereignty of
> God,
> having been predicted by the Lord Jesus himself. That is why John
couches
> his own longevity in such careful terms: he simply does not know how
long
> he
> will live and does not want his audience to base their hope on his
> life.[42]
>
> In short, John wanted to give Paul's churches the gospel because Paul
> died.
> He wrote the last chapter in haste, and as the final catalyst to his
> efforts, because Peter died. What is remarkable affirmation of this view
> are
> several pieces of independent data: (1) entirely apart from the
> consideration of Peter's death is our conclusion about the date of this
> book
> at c. 65 CE; (2) the early tradition of John's residence in Ephesus (the
> main locale where Paul's stamp was felt) needed some sort of catalyst,
> though none is provided in patristic literature; (3) John's departure
from
> Jerusalem in 65 is also somewhat attested in patristic literature; (4)
the
> Gentile audience and the strongly hellenized flavor to this gospel[43]
> need
> some kind of rationale since John was not commissioned as an apostle to
> the
> Gentiles; (5) the strong influence of Paul,[44] which has actually been
an
> argument against Johannine author****p, is to be accounted for by John's
> intentional deja vu connection with Paul.[45]
>
> In conclusion, once an early date for this gospel is allowed, the
> explanation of John 21 as the catalyst for this gospel comes into sharp
> relief. Paul had died and Peter died, too. John not only wanted to make
> the
> literary connection with Paul's churches that Peter had done-he went the
> extra mile and took up residence in Ephesus himself. As we stated in our
> preface, the Gentile mission and the Gentiles' missionary are what drive
> the
> literary endeavors of the NT writers. John has certainly put his stamp
of
> approval on Paul's gospel and efforts![46]"
>
> [41] A view more and more scholars are contending for. Cf. a decent
> bibliography in D. A. Carson, "Historical Tradition in the Fourth
Gospel:
> After Dodd, What?", in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and
> Tradition
> in the Four Gospels 2:113, 141-142.
>
> [42] This reading of 2 Peter 1:15 makes such perfectly good sense to me
> that
> one might wonder why NT scholar****p has not picked it up. Perhaps the
> reason
> is that only in recent years has an early date for John been found as a
> viable option-and further, only among the most conservative scholars
> (i.e.,
> those who would hold to authenticity of 2 Peter) could this possibility
> even
> be seen. It must be stressed that this is not crucial to my
understanding
> of
> the occasion of this gospel, for I have held to this view of the
occasion
> for several years, but only recently "stumbled upon" this reading of 2
> Peter
> 1:15.
>
> [43] See especially Dodd's The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel for
> hellenistic parallels.
>
> [44] See especially E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and
> Theology.
>
> [45] Most likely, the means by which John was able to be so steeped in
> Pauline thought was through an amanuensis who had some associations with
> Paul. This, too, is in keeping with patristic testimony, for there is a
> stream of tradition which suggests that John dictated this gospel, or
> employed the assistance of others in its composition.
>
> [46] One of the possible objections to this scenario is the probability
> that
> Timothy was already in Ephesus as an apostolic delegate. However, not
only
> would this be no hindrance to an apostle coming to take charge, but
> Timothy
> was no longer in Ephesus in 65 CE, as seems to be implied in Heb. 13:23
(a
> book which I date c. 65-66), for Timothy is about to be released from
his
> Roman imprisonment at this time."
>
> See the entire essay athttp://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1328
>
> This same author dates Luke's gospel c. 61-62, and argues that Luke
relied
> on Mark, but not Matthew. If he is right about the dating of both
Luke's
> and John's gospels, then the idea we all normally jump to (that Luke
wrote
> his gospel at the behest of Paul) is probably wrong, and it was John,
> rather
> than Luke, who wrote for the Pauline and Petrine (by inheritance after
> Paul's death) churches.
>
> At any rate, this is the best explanation for John's chapter 21 I've
ever
> seen. He's right. The only possible reason no other NT scholars have
> advanced it is the consensus who hold to the much later date for John's
> gospel. If it was written early, then the fit is perfect.
>
> God bless
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
> PS- you may want to do some exploring on that site ;-)
I have bookmarked the site's URL and will explore it at my leisure. It
looks
to have very interesting information of which to explore. Thank you.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
|
