Gospel of John a Forgery, Johannine Communities Never Existed

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm just fed up with these academics treating Christianity as if it's anything but a scam.

Maybe someone should define the terms and present the case. It would at least be interesting to read.

Markan priority is treated as a foregone conclusion. That cripples everything else they would have to say because that is the bedrock on which they make their models and theories.

Hell, the 96 ad date for Revelation still gets tossed around as if it's a proven fact. How do they reach this conclusion? Because Irenaeus said John was alive during the reign of Trajan. As far as these cretinous windbags know, it could any year from 96 ad to 117 ad. They just chose their dates out of convenience. It's why they keep Mark at around 70 ad, despite all the evidence pointing to it being a mid second century invention. "Mark is about the Roman-Jewish war, therefore, it was composed 65-75 ad." That's their logic. It's all fucking guess work. Which I don't have a problem with because I do it too. Then again, I'm not getting paid to do this!

[Joseph D. L.]

I don't believe there's a conspiracy in academia. What I do think is that these scholars are trying to placate and appeal to the public at large. From what (little) I've read, scholars in France, Germany, and Italy are far more critical of Christianity and its history than the one's here in the states.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm just fed up with these academics treating Christianity as if it's anything but a scam.

Maybe someone should define the terms and present the case. It would at least be interesting to read.

Markan priority is treated as a foregone conclusion. That cripples everything else they would have to say because that is the bedrock on which they make their models and theories.

Hell, the 96 ad date for Revelation still gets tossed around as if it's a proven fact. How do they reach this conclusion? Because Irenaeus said John was alive during the reign of Trajan. As far as these cretinous windbags know, it could any year from 96 ad to 117 ad. They just chose their dates out of convenience. It's why they keep Mark at around 70 ad, despite all the evidence pointing to it being a mid second century invention. "Mark is about the Roman-Jewish war, therefore, it was composed 65-75 ad." That's their logic. It's all fucking guess work. Which I don't have a problem with because I do it too. Then again, I'm not getting paid to do this!

The idea that conclusions like these are generally guess work is pretty conventional.

There are some blind spots where almost all academics refuse to recognize the uncertainty, unfortunately.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy in academia. What I do think is that these scholars are trying to placate and appeal to the public at large. From what (little) I've read, scholars in France, Germany, and Italy are far more critical of Christianity and its history than the one's here in the states.

There's a pretty wide variety of scholars in both the Anglosphere and the continent. More of an ideological divide than a geographical one.

[Bernard Muller]

to Joseph D. L.

Hell, the 96 ad date for Revelation still gets tossed around as if it's a proven fact. How do they reach this conclusion? Because Irenaeus said John was alive during the reign of Trajan. As far as these cretinous windbags know, it could any year from 96 ad to 117 ad.

I think Irenaeus wrote that John was alive "til Trajan's time" (not during the whole reign of Trajan). Anyway you cannot surmise that Revelation was completed sometime during Trajan's reign. It could have been done before that.
Internal evidence told me that the Jewish version was written soon after the events of 70 but "John" pretended he wrote that part of Revelation during the short reign of Galba. And the main Christian additions were most likely inserted during the rule of Domitian.
For the ones interested, I explained the above on this web page: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

It's why they keep Mark at around 70 ad, despite all the evidence pointing to it being a mid second century invention. "Mark is about the Roman-Jewish war, therefore, it was composed 65-75 ad."

Well, according to my study, I deducted, through the internal evidence, Mark was completed (up to 16:8) in the winter of 70-71. No, it was not done to have Mark be the first gospel.
Details about the dating of the gospels are on this web page: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
All the evidence pointing to mid 2nd century? Really, what evidence are you talking about?

Cordially, Bernard

[Joseph D. L.]

I think Irenaeus wrote that John was alive "til Trajan's time" (not during the whole reign of Trajan). Anyway you cannot surmise that Revelation was completed sometime during Trajan's reign. It could have been done before that.

The point is that these scholars do not have the evidence they need to make their claims, and thus are just throwing out whatever number sounds good to them.

Internal evidence told me that the Jewish version was written soon after the events of 70 but "John" pretended he wrote that part of Revelation during the short reign of Galba. And the main Christian additions were most likely inserted during the rule of Domitian.
For the ones interested, I explained the above on this web page: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

Are you even for real? Revelation has marks in it that indicates that it was written, redacted, re-edited, numerous times. That's another problem I have. We/you treat this text as if it was written in a single setting without giving them their proper historical and textual context. Revelation has additions going up to but not limited to, the Kitos revolt, bar Kochba revolt, and the Antonine Plague.

Well, according to my study, I deducted, through the internal evidence, Mark was completed (up to 16:8) in the winter of 70-71. No, it was not done to have Mark be the first gospel.

That's some Seinfeld comedy right there!

All the evidence pointing to mid 2nd century? Really, what evidence are you talking about?

The Little Apocalypse of ch. 13. and the fact that no one seems to know anything about this text until Papias and Justin. Even Irenaeus is hesitant to ascribe it to a heretical sect. Mid second century is a guess. It could be late second century.

Cordially, Bernard

This is a nitpick not directed towards you but why do some people feel the need to sign their posts? It's already signed at the top. Nothing is added or lost by this.

I need to go to bed...

[MrMacSon]

The implication is clearly again - Irenaeus is a liar.

FWIW, -

... my opinion is that Irenaeus was just making wild guesses as to the word that should be associated with "666."

Since he is the first early Christian author to cite Revelation (IIRC),and even he was unsure what it symbolized, this suggests that by the time Polycarp was publishing his collections of Christian works (which Irenaeus was using as his corpus of sacred texts) the significance of the statement had long before been obscured by time.

Second, at best, at least on the standard chronologies of the various Christian texts. Justin Martyr summarizes chapter 20 of the Revelation, attributing it by name to "John, one of the apostles of Christ," in Dialogue 81.4. (Many scholars are certain that Papias, too, used the Revelation, but that topic is not quite as clear cut.)

I agree that Irenaeus was probably guessing.

[Bernard Muller]

to Joseph D. L.,

Are you even for real? Revelation has marks in it that indicates that it was written, redacted, re-edited, numerous times. That's another problem I have. We/you treat this text as if it was written in a single setting without giving them their proper historical and textual context. Revelation has additions going up to but not limited to, the Kitos revolt, bar Kochba revolt, and the Antonine Plague.

The bar Kochba revolt? Why not the revolt of 70 AD? See Revelation 11:1-2:
11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise
[implying the vision came as a dream during sleeping]
` and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.
[the author was in Jerusalem before its destruction]
2 "But leave out the court [of the Gentiles] which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they [the Romans] will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

Note: that's three & a half years and inspired from the revised book of Daniel. The apocalypse was foreseen for the winter of 73-74 C.E., after the Romans conquered & destroyed the city in the summer of 70 C.E., with the 10th legion staying behind in the ruins of Jerusalem (Josephus' Wars, VII, I, 2). The later statement could NOT have been written after 74 C.E.

There was a plague during Titus' reign according to Suetonius:
Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Divus Titus, c. 110 C.E.:
"There were some dreadful disasters during his reign [Titus], such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania [August 79C.E.], a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights [80], and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before [80]. In these many great calamities ..."

Where did you see allusion to the Kitos revolt?

That's some Seinfeld comedy right there!

Seinfeld or not, what does that have to do with my dating of Mark? That's certainly not a valid argument against it. But it shows you did not bother to read my aforementioned web page on the dating of the gospels (http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html).

The Little Apocalypse of ch. 13. and the fact that no one seems to know anything about this text until Papias and Justin. Even Irenaeus is hesitant to ascribe it to a heretical sect. Mid second century is a guess. It could be late second century.

Why do you think the little Apocalypse would point to something else than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?
Well, there were very few if any Christian writers up to Papias who could suggest they knew about Mark. The only exception is the author of 1 Clement who very likely knew about it, even if it used Mark as just material.
About 1 Clement and Mark, once again, I addressed the issue in my aforementioned web page, more precisely at http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#1clement. I also analysed the internal evidence evidence in the epistle and determine it was written into the 1st century AD.
And if "Luke" and "Matthew" wrote their gospel in the 1st century (as I ascertained in the same web page), that should count as early witnesses of Mark.
By the way, I studied the issue in depth, not by guessing as you do.

I still have to find out your observation on Irenaeus in relation with Mark. That's news to me.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

Why do you think the little Apocalypse would point to something else than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

'Cos of Josephus, Antiquities..., Book 13, Chapter 14. The Greekiness, referencing Daniel, etc., is a reference to Demetrius Eucerus, who nearly brought an end to Alexander Jannaeus. Jannaeus spends 6 years "in the mountains..." before regrouping and attacking the Pharisees and Crucifying 800. While they are on the crosses, he slits the throats of the wives and children in front of them.

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

No bouda-doubt-it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Joseph D. L.,
I could not find in the writings of Irenaeus what you claimed: "Even Irenaeus is hesitant to ascribe it to a heretical sect."
Where is the evidence for your claim?

I addressed the issue of the dating of Mark also on that webpage http://historical-jesus.info/41.html. I also demonstrated that Mark could not have been written after 135. I began as such"
"D) Could Mk 13:5-23 refer to the 70-135 period, ending by the second Jewish war and the defeat of Bar Kokhba?
That's rather out-of-question because: ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Joseph D. L.]

]
The bar Kochba revolt? Why not the revolt of 70 AD? See Revelation 11:1-2:
11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise
[implying the vision came as a dream during sleeping]
` and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.
[the author was in Jerusalem before its destruction]
2 "But leave out the court [of the Gentiles] which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they [the Romans] will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

I've already given my reasons why chs 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Revelation are responses to the Kitos revolt and bar Kochba revolt. Indeed, ch 14 is almost a parallel of the same account found in Gittin 57 about Hadrian building a vineyard from the bodies of Jews after bar Kochba was defeated.

Note: that's three & a half years and inspired from the revised book of Daniel. The apocalypse was foreseen for the winter of 73-74 C.E., after the Romans conquered & destroyed the city in the summer of 70 C.E., with the 10th legion staying behind in the ruins of Jerusalem (Josephus' Wars, VII, I, 2). The later statement could NOT have been written after 74 C.E.

Absolute rubbish. The conclusions are based from fudging the prophecy and rounding up to preconceived conclusions.

There was a plague during Titus' reign according to Suetonius:
Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Divus Titus, c. 110 C.E.:
"There were some dreadful disasters during his reign [Titus], such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania [August 79C.E.], a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights [80], and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before [80]. In these many great calamities ..."

The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the following plague are recorded in Rev 15 and 16. The Antonine plague is recorded in 18, 21 and 22. The point is that Revelation was still being added to as late as the reign of Commodus. Hell I'm not even ruling out the reign of Severus.

Where did you see allusion to the Kitos revolt?

Chapter 11, and chapter 13.

Seinfeld or not, what does that have to do with my dating of Mark? That's certainly not a valid argument against it. But it shows you did not bother to read my aforementioned web page on the dating of the gospels (http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html).

I'm selective on who I bother to read. Just because someone writes something doesn't mean I have to give my time over to it to form an opinion.

Hell, I've only ever read one thing Kirby wrote (Papias and Hegesippus being the same book) and that's it. Time is valuable to me and if I feel so inclined to read something then I will.

Why do you think the little Apocalypse would point to something else than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Because the Roman-Jewish war means very little to Christianity. It was a direct response to the policies enacted by Hadrian on Jews in Palestine.

Well, there were very few if any Christian writers up to Papias who could suggest they knew about Mark. The only exception is the author of 1 Clement who very likely knew about it, even if it used Mark as just material.

Papias is the firt direct mention of a text written by a fellow named Mark. 1 Clement in no way indicates, insinuates, or implies that he knows of Mark. That is your own desperation looking for answers.

About 1 Clement and Mark, once again, I addressed the issue in my aforementioned web page, more precisely at http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#1clement. I also analysed the internal evidence evidence in the epistle and determine it was written into the 1st century AD.

I don't need your analysis to understand a text I can read myself.

And if "Luke" and "Matthew" wrote their gospel in the 1st century (as I ascertained in the same web page), that should count as early witnesses of Mark.

Well they didn't and all the internal and external evidence points to them being second century works as well.

So you have failed.

By the way, I studied the issue in depth, not by guessing as you do.

If the above is any indication as to the quality of your study then I won't bother reading it any further.

I still have to find out your observation on Irenaeus in relation with Mark. That's news to me.

I can save you the trouble. Irenaeus readily ascribes Matthew, Luke and John to heretical sects, yet doesn't for Mark. The reason for this can only be because he couldn't find one that used it. It's only later through Clement of Alexandria and the Letter to Theodore that we know the Carpocratians prefer this text, albeit in a truncated form.

There. You have assured that I will never take you seriously.