Re: Dating question
- Dear Greg,
<<<The strongest thus far would seem to me to be the fact that
the Apostle John was unlikely to pull off such a feat while in his
nineties. But this is a social thesis which doesn't really take grip.
>>>I agree that the age of John is an issue. That is, of course, if you
hold - as I do - that the Apostle John was the author. Even J.A.T.
Robinson saw it as an issue.
But it is not simply a social thesis. Considering John's well
known and long involvement with Ephesus and the rest of Asia,
how could he, at the end of the century, deliver the rebuke to
Ephesus (and those to the other centres) that they had lost their
first love? If he had had a long association with them, then he
must have been partly responsible for their slide and 1. he would
have lacked sufficient credibility to send it and 2. would have
needed the message to be delivered to him - rather than be its
sender. Either, then, someone other than John wrote it at the end
of the first entury or he did write it, but early and before he could
be held responsible for the condition of the Church. The latter
position makes most sense to me.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Greg Clarke
> Thanks to Kenneth, Ian, Kym, Doug and Don.PDF download
> Kenneth, I know your material (which I read in the enormous
> format!) and found very helpful your deflation of the significanceof
> Irenaeus's statement. I shall have to read Kym and Don; andI'm very
> interested in Doug's Vespasian comment, which I'll pursue.Domitian dating is.
> But I am trying to see how strong the argument AGAINST
> Kenneth's material is strong in suggesting the possibility thatthe Domitian
> dating has been a mistake made by a string of ChurchFathers, or that it is
> possible to reinterpret their statements such that they are notdefending
> the Domitian date.there any
> But this seems to be to be a different question to the one: "Is
> external evidence that it was not written under Domitian?"Apostle John
> The strongest thus far would seem to me to be the fact that the
> was unlikely to pull off such a feat while in his nineties. But thisis a
> social thesis which doesn't really take grip.likely to
> Here's a question for us: what kind of external evidence are we
> find that would refute the Domitian date?
> Thanks very much for your interest
- Sorry, Georg and others. I didn't think of this restriction.
Dr G. J. Clarke
Ph.D., University of Sydney
Editor, Matthias Media
Ph. 61 2 9663 1478. Fax. 61 2 9663 3265.
> From: "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:33:56 +0100
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: [revelation-list] Administrivia: Please, read
> Dear list
> I am sure that bible studies for small groups may be interesting
> material and well prepared and well done. However, I think we should
> keep the focus of this list on scholarly discussions and scholarly
> material. It may be difficult to distinguish, but I would say that
> material is not scholarly in the aforementioned sense just because it is
> written by a scholar.
> It may, as I said, be very interesting and well-prepared and
> well-written material, but I fear that we will open for a very large
> number of messages, if messages like this one are allowed on this list.
> Therefore, such messages are off-topic and should not be posted. Feel
> free to ask me if you are unsure as to the status of your material.
> Thank you!
> Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/