Comments on: John 5:2 and the Date of John’s Gospel: A Response to Dan Wallace http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/john-52-and-the-date-of-john%e2%80%99s-gospel-a-response-to-dan-wallace ALERT: Dr. Köstenberger’s blogs are now becoming available in Spanish. We will continue to add new posts as soon as they can be translated. Click on “Espanol” above Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:31:30 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Andreas Köstenberger http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/john-52-and-the-date-of-john%e2%80%99s-gospel-a-response-to-dan-wallace/comment-page-1#comment-20153 Andreas Köstenberger Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:34:10 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=127#comment-20153 Thank you very much, Dan, for this note. You're right, the comment I made was uncalled for. Please forgive me. I think we both share a commitment to looking at the data and addressing the issues they raise, so I think we have a lot in common that way and really should be friends! I also appreciate the presentation you gave at the recent symposium at SEBTS on the pericope of the adulterous woman. I'm currently on vacation, so am not able to respond to the subscription you mention, though I will ponder this as I write my Johannine theology in the near future, God willing. Thank you very much for the exchange and for your gracious response. Thank you very much, Dan, for this note. You’re right, the comment I made was uncalled for. Please forgive me.

I think we both share a commitment to looking at the data and addressing the issues they raise, so I think we have a lot in common that way and really should be friends!

I also appreciate the presentation you gave at the recent symposium at SEBTS on the pericope of the adulterous woman.

I’m currently on vacation, so am not able to respond to the subscription you mention, though I will ponder this as I write my Johannine theology in the near future, God willing.

Thank you very much for the exchange and for your gracious response.

]]> By: Daniel B . Wallace http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/john-52-and-the-date-of-john%e2%80%99s-gospel-a-response-to-dan-wallace/comment-page-1#comment-20026 Daniel B . Wallace Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:48:47 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=127#comment-20026 Andreas, thanks for your kind remarks. You make some excellent points and I'm glad for the exchange. But you also mention something that I would take issue with: "If by that you mean examples that you accept, it appears I won’t be able to meet that condition, because you seem quite convinced of the rightness of your view!" That is really an inaccurate representation of my views, and almost borders on impugning my motives. I am NOT convinced of the rightness of my view; I am convinced by clear, unambiguous data. (As evidence of this, anyone who knows me knows that I change my views all the time--far more often than some are comfortable with.) You even admit that the case you make is possible, but not required by the data. Good grammatical method requires more than that. Otherwise, one can base his theological views on what is grammatically possible but not on what is probable. We are dealing with the parameters of how language works, and we don't have the right to bend the framework just because it suits our viewpoint. I can commend you for being one of the first to even notice my article in Biblica and for interacting with it seriously. But this raises an important issue: if most scholars have argued for a later date of John while ignoring estin in John 5.2, perhaps this text has something more to say about the issue than they would have thought otherwise. Their views, at least, for a later date are in ignorance of the issues of this verse. So, the weight of their opinion might be thereby lessened. I appreciate the fact that you interacted with it, but I am unconvinced that you've made a compelling case for historical presents using eimi. One other thing--just in passing: Have you done much study in the subscriptions in Gospel manuscripts? If so, I'd like to know what you've come across regarding the date of John. There is apparently an old tradition that I discovered recently as I was looking at a manuscript in Greece (pardon my ignorance about such matters; you may already know all about this!) in which this note is added to the end of manuscripts of the Gospel of John: "This was written 32 years after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ." I don't mean to sound pugilistic on this one, and I don't yet know how old that tradition goes back (and thus how reliable it is), but I'd be interested to learn if you have seen anything in the manuscripts that suggests a date for John. This is the only reference I've seen. And, for what it's worth (which I can't honestly evaluate yet), it agrees exactly with the date that I assign to John's Gospel. Andreas, thanks for your kind remarks. You make some excellent points and I’m glad for the exchange. But you also mention something that I would take issue with: “If by that you mean examples that you accept, it appears I won’t be able to meet that condition, because you seem quite convinced of the rightness of your view!” That is really an inaccurate representation of my views, and almost borders on impugning my motives. I am NOT convinced of the rightness of my view; I am convinced by clear, unambiguous data. (As evidence of this, anyone who knows me knows that I change my views all the time–far more often than some are comfortable with.) You even admit that the case you make is possible, but not required by the data. Good grammatical method requires more than that. Otherwise, one can base his theological views on what is grammatically possible but not on what is probable. We are dealing with the parameters of how language works, and we don’t have the right to bend the framework just because it suits our viewpoint. I can commend you for being one of the first to even notice my article in Biblica and for interacting with it seriously. But this raises an important issue: if most scholars have argued for a later date of John while ignoring estin in John 5.2, perhaps this text has something more to say about the issue than they would have thought otherwise. Their views, at least, for a later date are in ignorance of the issues of this verse. So, the weight of their opinion might be thereby lessened. I appreciate the fact that you interacted with it, but I am unconvinced that you’ve made a compelling case for historical presents using eimi.

One other thing–just in passing: Have you done much study in the subscriptions in Gospel manuscripts? If so, I’d like to know what you’ve come across regarding the date of John. There is apparently an old tradition that I discovered recently as I was looking at a manuscript in Greece (pardon my ignorance about such matters; you may already know all about this!) in which this note is added to the end of manuscripts of the Gospel of John: “This was written 32 years after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I don’t mean to sound pugilistic on this one, and I don’t yet know how old that tradition goes back (and thus how reliable it is), but I’d be interested to learn if you have seen anything in the manuscripts that suggests a date for John. This is the only reference I’ve seen. And, for what it’s worth (which I can’t honestly evaluate yet), it agrees exactly with the date that I assign to John’s Gospel.

]]> By: Brian http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/john-52-and-the-date-of-john%e2%80%99s-gospel-a-response-to-dan-wallace/comment-page-1#comment-19512 Brian Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:40:16 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=127#comment-19512 This is a general comment: Instead of thinking John is completly independent of the Synoptics, I think John assumes knowledge of the Synotics on the part of his readers who I think are both Jewish and Gentile in audience. I have not done alot of study in the Gospels (I am a measely recent MDiv graduate) but from what I learned a late dating of the Synoptics just didn't make a whole lot of sense but once I realized John asumes familiarity with the Synoptics it made sense he could be written much later and still make sense. maks sense? This is a general comment: Instead of thinking John is completly independent of the Synoptics, I think John assumes knowledge of the Synotics on the part of his readers who I think are both Jewish and Gentile in audience. I have not done alot of study in the Gospels (I am a measely recent MDiv graduate) but from what I learned a late dating of the Synoptics just didn’t make a whole lot of sense but once I realized John asumes familiarity with the Synoptics it made sense he could be written much later and still make sense. maks sense?

]]> By: Philip Gons http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/john-52-and-the-date-of-john%e2%80%99s-gospel-a-response-to-dan-wallace/comment-page-1#comment-19241 Philip Gons Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:53:10 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=127#comment-19241 Thanks for the interesting discussion. What do you think of the use of EIMI in Rev 21:1? Seems like it could be another example of EIMI as past-referring in Johannine literature. Phil Thanks for the interesting discussion.

What do you think of the use of EIMI in Rev 21:1? Seems like it could be another example of EIMI as past-referring in Johannine literature.

Phil

]]>