Date for Johanine Works

[John]

me and anochria have differeing opinions on when the works of John were writen. we also disagree ( i assume) on who actually wrote the works.

so this thread is for the debate of both subjects for everyone who wishes to join, but the only rule is this:

it must be based solely on textual criticism and historical settings. in other words, no theology shjould be involved in this thread, unless the theology helps date the "book"

so--- let us begin the debate.

shalom- john

[anochria]

So, who has the burden of proof here? It's always harder to make a case for a date than pick it apart

Should we cast lots?

[John]

lol. i dont know. i would say you for the simple reason that i am leaving for my aunts today, and also because i am a little lazy- i have a lot of info that i dont wan tto type. so i am waitng to write tit dwn to organize it first.

shalom- john

[anochria]

OK, well, first off, let's talk about who authored Revelation.

The biggest argument in favor of a different author than the author of the other Johannine writings is that Revelation's Greek is different (inferior) to the others.

However, I believe this can be explained by the conditions under which the book of Revelation was written. Isn't it likely that John, exiled on the island of Patmos, would have written the book down hastily after experiencing the harrowing vision? Is it surprising that the book would be less polished and edited?

In support of John as author, I would point out that while there are differences in quality between Revelation and the other Johanine books, I am told that the word usage in Revelation is more similiar to the other Johanine books than it is to any other book in the New Testament.

There are also common motifs, themes, and phrases that occur in both Revelation and the other Johanine books, which are evidence of shared authorship. One examples is the reference to Jesus as the "word of God" (John 1:1, 19:13)

That said, the authorship isn't as important to me as the dating of Revelation.

[itiswritten]

Interesting. I realize that I am in the minority, but I actually believe that Revelation, the gospels, and possibly other books were originally penned in Hebrew and then quickly translated to Greek. There are so many things in both the gospels and Revelation that are unique to Hebrew. Not only that there are several things that would really not make a lot of since in Greek or English. From what I understand, at least some scholars recognize that areas of the NT are in poor Greek. I think that is because it is a translation from earlier Hebrew. Many earlier writers clearly believed that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Also the bulk of the Dead Sea scrolls were written in Hebrew which would be along the same time frame.

In addition, I believe that if most of the writers of the NT saw there writings as "religious" texts they would have used Hebrew. Many who once held to a Greek view are changing their minds as more evidence comes forth.

[Jonatan]

What if the scripts were written in Koine greek? It should have more merit.
Moreover, the Revelation, which was written for 7 churches in Asia Minor, the hellenistic majority. Hebrew would be not efficient for them as long as the Greeks would not understand Hebrew, while for Hebrews, it would be better for them, being bilingual speakers of Hebrew and Koine Greek.
Koine Greek was some kind of Lingua Franca in those times, between Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, wasn't it?

Some does not believe that the apostle John Zabdee is the same John that has written the Revelation, because of Literary criticism. Only the biblical criticism! Without belief, without faith for the Lord that keeps and observes His word that no letter may fall down so that the meaning would be changed.

That's all the criticists! Denying Textus Receptus to be the best into original and wanting to establish the critic texts as Nestle/Aland, Westcott Hort and the others...
Doing this way, we may doubt about any sayings of the Lord.
Criticists want to judge the spiritual by materialistic point of view. Let Lord beware us of this.

[John]

itiswritten:

i believe that a large portion was written in hebrew or at least aramaic. i believe matthew was written in heb./ ar. for it was to a jewish community. i also hink that mark translated the words of peter (who spoke them in hebrew) while he was writing the gospel down. the fact that papias records such gives strength to this claim.

however, literary wroiks like johns epistles, goepel and apacolypse- all awere undeniably greek works.

luke was probably a greek work. posibly hebrew, but slight chance as his audience did not speak it. (the hellenists)

1 kefa was probably written in hebrew along with yaakov. however, 2 kefa was written late in the first century, early in the 2nd so it was also undenaiably written in greek.

most of shauls epistles except maybe portions of romans and corinthians were in greek, with a few hebrew hymns and sayings.

hebrews was probably written totally in hebrew, although it is very good greek. so there might have been a good translator for it.

anyway, most of the general episles: hebrew.
most of pauls letters: greek.
johns letters and goepel and apocalypse: greek.
matthew: hebrew
mark: translated from hebrew to greek by ear
luke: greek

so i think that there is a pretty level equality in it all. plus, even tin the greek works there are hebrew phrases. in the hebrew works there are greek phrasees.

so they interchange.

but i think that the gospels of john are undeniably greek texts.

so how does this information help us date his works? i think it calls for a later date as greek became even more prominant (especially his style of writing) in the latter time period of the early christian church.

shalom- john