From: Andrew Kulikovsky (killer@cryogen.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 1997 - 08:58:00 EDT
Edward Hobbes wrote:
> More plausible might be something like Josephus's writing--some of it,
> written in his crabbed and grossly Semitic Greek, he put in the hands of
> his assistants, and had them rewrite it in good Greek. In the case of John
> and Revelation, that would have to imply that John wrote Revelation himself,
> but had an editor fix up the Gospel into more acceptable Greek.
>
> I don't believe it for a moment, but I don't understand the alternative.
> That more than one John existed in the early Church is surely plausible--
> look at how many Jameses there were, for example. And John/Jochanan
> is pretty common as a name for Jews--witness that the "founder" of the
> Yavneh Rabbinical Seminary was named John, son of Zacchaeus.
I don't why you don't believe it and you didn't say...
You seem to be either forgetting or maybe you haven't even read some of
the good suggestions made by others on this list:
Clay Bartholomew wrote:
> Yes, the Greek of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John are quite different in
> style. This fact alone does not solve the complicated issue of authorship. The
> role of an secretary/scribe needs to be factored into any consideration of the
> authorship question. It is possible to argue that the Greek of John's gospel is
> too good for the Apostle and that the Greek of the Apocalypse is quite
> believable on this score. Then if you give John the help of a secretary/scribe in
> the Gospel but remove this help from the Apocalypse, the language problem
> goes away. This line of reasoning does not even address the issue of who wrote
> the Gospel, a separate and equally controversial issue.
>
> I have had a long and intense interest John's Gospel and the Apocalypse. I have
> read the Apocalypse many times in the GNT and I am very impressed by the
> similarities in the theology of the two books. If you take a long and hard look at
> the christology of the gospel and the christology of the Apocalypse a
> fascinating pattern of interdependence begins to appear.
Robert Petry wrote:
> Has it ever been considered that Revelation is written with this idea
> presented up front? "The revelation of Yahshua..." and not of John, and
> that therefore most of the writing is of quotes transcribed by John.
> Obviously, if this is true, then Revelation would obviously appear
> different from the Gospel or Catholic Epistles of John.
In support of Robert Petry's suggestion there is 14 places in Revelation
where John is instructed to write somethings as dictated...
cheers,
Andrew
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
|
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: killer@cryogen.com
|
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics
|
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?
|
| ...Look to Jesus Christ
|
| hO IHSOUS KURIOS!
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT