Dating of the Fourth Gospel: Nongbri

[Stuart]

Giuseppe,

The persecution, and we have to be careful with the meaning of the word at the time of writing, just as we must be with the word witness (martyr), almost certainly means here to be confronted with hostility and challenged, and even chased out of the building. At the time of the writing of the Gospels, and most of the NT (if not all), the word had not acquired it's modern understanding, just as martyr had not. We tend to apply post-Decian era meanings in the text. And this is an understandable error, as church historians and pious Christian scribes back dated sanctioned state persecutions to be as early as Claudius, even interpolating works of non-Christian historians to fit the legends and tales they were indoctrinated with.

The term "to kill" used in John has usages both symbolic and literal. And John uses them back and forth. His Jesus speaks of himself as life and life giving. So to be denied him is to be killed - at least spiritually. To me the meaning of the passage is clear. The Jewish Christians or proto-Orthodox type Christians have become dominant in the churches (the physical compounds/buildings are referred to as Synagogues in John) that John knows and are starting to enforce their rule, not allowing teachers of John's version of Christianity to speak, by excommunicating them (ἀποσυνάγωγος). We see clearly this is related to confessing John's version of Jesus in 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2. Fear of "the Jews" (Jewish Christians) is tied in John to those who confess John's Jesus. This is not a Jewish vs Christian argument in John 16:2, but Christian vs Christian argument

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe,

The persecution, and we have to be careful with the meaning of the word at the time of writing, just as we must be with the word witness (martyr), almost certainly means here to be confronted hostilely challenged, and even chased out of the building. At the rime of the writing of the Gospels, and most of the NT (if not all), the word had not acquired it's modern understanding, just as martyr had not. We tend to apply post-Decian era meanings in the text. And this is an understandable error, as church historians and pious Christian scribes back dated sanction state persecutions to be as early as Claudius, even interpolating works of non-Christian historians to fit the legends and tales they were indoctrinated with.

The term used in John to kill has usages both symbolic and literal. And John uses them back and forth. He speaks of himself as life and life giving. So to be denied him is to be killed - at least spiritually. To me the meaning of the passage is clear. The Jewish Christians or proto-Orthodox type Christians have become dominant in the churches (the physical compounds/buildings are referred to as Synagogues in John) that John knows and are starting to enforce their rule, not allowing teachers of John's version of Christianity to speak, by excommunicating them (ἀποσυνάγωγος). We see clearly this is related to confessing Johns version of Jesus in 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2. Fear of "the Jews" (Jewish Christians) is tied in John to those who confess John's Jesus. This is not a Jewish vs Christian argument in John 16:2, but Christian vs Christian argument

Thanks for that, Stuart. I agree fully with you. Persecution means only sectarian division.
Even so, I think that the conflict inside the same Christian religion between Jewish-Christians and Gnostic-Marcionite Christians was a mere collateral effect of the wider conflict between mainstream post-70 Judaism and marginal Jewish sects. Obviously also in that case conflict can mean only sectarian division, not physical killing.

[Giuseppe]

FWIW Mark Goodacre gives moer than one reason for a date of the Gospel of Thomas after Bar Kokhba e.g. on p 168 of Thomas and the Gospels he quotes saying 71

Jesus said, "I shall throw down [this] building, and no one will be able to build it

and argues this dates from after the failure of Bar Kokhba when it became clear the temple was not being rebuilt anytime soon.

Very interesting, Andrew, thanks. I have not thought about it.

But I wonder: if the explicit mention of the '''future'' impossibility to rebuild the temple is to be considered as evidence of a post-Bar-Kokhba date, then the same conclusion may be inferred about the Gospel of Mark from an analogous explicit mention of an identical impossibility in Mark 11:14:

Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.