The problem of John vs the Synoptics is well known to biblical critics. If there is a growing trend it’s only in evangelical and conservative circles.
And yes, some material in John can be used but not the material critical scholars seem incompatible with the synoptic portrait.
[1] John is most likely not as early as Mark and the final redaction dates to the end of the first century.
[2] Christian works claiming to be by witnesses in antiquity by itself is about as worthless a claim as can be made since false claims are a dime a dozen.
[3] Half of critical scholarship thinks John was directly dependent on written synoptic material (mainly Mark). Half doesn’t. If you want to present arguments for GJohn’s independence feel free to.
Parts are very much incompatible.
This is straight nonsense. Historical Jesus scholars all engage in source analysis before reconstructing Jesus. They all take a stance on GJohn’s potential literary dependence and go from there.
Are you asking? If we are talking about same issue I think we are, multiple people told you that you were misrepresenting the arguments of critical scholars. No one dismissed Pauline authorship merely because the letter was too long. The problem is not your typing, it’s your failure to read and comprehend what people are telling you. You are rehashing a talking point that was adequately dealt with.
The argument about sentence length is not made in isolation. It’s a package deal. The writing style (length and structure) is different but so is the theology and vocabulary. The argument is a package. Sometimes to this can be added difficulties in fitting the scene into Paul’s life. Not to mention there are well known forgeries in Paul’s name and many falsely attributed Christian works at the time. It’s not odd or remotely unlikely something would have been written falsely on Paul’s name.
You merely claiming scholars reject Pauline authorship of something just because a letter is too long truly demonstrates that you have no idea what you are taking about. An Intro the NT might help.
Of course not. They did reject his authorship in part based on those criteria. That’s all I was trying to say. If they use those two criteria as well as others, who’s to say those two points should not be reevaluated? That is what I’m suggesting.
Let’s just take one example and stick with just it to see if we can get on the same page.
I’d recommend you actually read the work rather than just quote mine something that seems favorable to you. The. You will then know what critical scholars mean when they use John to reconstruct Jesus. It doesn’t mean taking the I am statements as historically true.
I did read what they wrote. I quoted them. They make an important point. If we look at John from a different perspective we can mine tons of valuable information. Instead of telling me how to present an argument, critique the argument itself. You go from one rejected piece of information to the next without addressing your personal disagreement with it. What scholars have said is not the point. What do you say? You see?
Point out if you will, why the birth accounts are impossible to reconcile
IYO.
They who? What did you make of P. Fredriksen’s article? How about A. Lincoln’s?
And very few would deny we can mine some
valuable information from John. The self-references of Jesus are the problem. Mining implies digging through stuff we don’t want. It means filtering historicity out of the rest of John which is not historical. “Mine” was your word by the way.
It doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t examine their work. They may be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. I think they make many, many errors. If I’m wrong, so be it. What I’ve learned so far makes me question their finished product.
I know. I said that, too. So, it can’t hurt to dissect their techniques and their conclusions. 12 Angry Men. It didn’t look good for the kid at first. Improbable he’d change their minds. (just as an example of what scrutiny can accomplish.)
Could Joe, Mary and Jesus have travelled to Egypt first and then gone to Nazareth and still harmonize? It doesn’t say when the returned from Bethlehem to Nazaareth, just that they did. There is nothing that logically intereferes with a long way around. Just a simple example where think Criticism is wrong. Nothing wrong about pointing that out, surely.
I am aware. You don’t seem aware of what’s in it. It appears you only read the one article, if you did in fact read it, by Mark Powell, who is actually very conservative. Try Lincoln’s article.
Vinnie, how could I quote it if I didn’t read it? BUT, that’s not the point. The point is can we say, “Maybe he’s right? Let’s look closer” That’s all I’m saying.
Are you aware it’s over 300 pages and has contributions by many scholars? You said you read it and offered a snippet of one and I asked you about two other papers inside the work to which, like a deer in headlights, you just kept quoting the title of the work.