1957 IS modern in biblical archeology.
That is a opinion line from some wiki “editor”. Those are always biased and often incorrect. However, the part I am citing comes from direct quotes from the cites.
Okay, direct quotes from the cites it is:
So lets take a few known facts about John.
He lived to be around 90 years old*, and for most of his later life lived in a religious retreat in Ephesus. In that community lived (among others) the (later to be) Bishops Polycarp and Papias of Hierapolis- both known as literate and educated men. Their works are widely quoted and some few original fragments have been found. There is no doubt at all that they wrote widely, and were real people.
Now lets us take out old William of Ockhams razor. (Ouch that thing is still sharp!)
Now, are you seriously going to try and tell us, that these two literate men (among many others) who lived with John in a small community for decades- they *never once took out pen and parchment and asked John to tell them about his travels with Jesus?
*
**Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. **
Sorry, now it’s you making the extraordinary claim.
- once a man got past 30, 90 wasnt that rare back then.
Well, since John A. T. Robinson, a well known modern scholar and writer of quite a few articles , books and journals, believes that John wrote his Gospel, they are clearly contradicted right there on that same page. So, if they get such a important fact wrong,m they are not be be believed. Note that Robinson says it is disputed and argued, so I believe his words, since he doesn’t lie his ass off with absolutes which are so easily proven wrong.
They may not believe it, but plenty of others do.
Is there any chance that your “known facts” about John come from/are mixed with extra-biblical traditions?
Indeed. The idea that we have “known facts” about any apostles apart from maybe (maybe) their name is questionable in its own way.
Are you denying that Bishops Polycarp and Papias of Hierapolis were real people and wrote widely? I mean we have found actual fragments of their work. And in their writing they claimed that they lived with John in Ephesus. No serious scholar debates this.
But I suppose someone will try some pedantic idiocy like if you dictate to a another person who does the actual writing down, you are not the 'writer". :rolleyes: You know, I have a thank you letter from the Commander of a Air Force base. Since I knew the Col back then, I happen to know he didnt type it himself, personally, in fact he had his clerk do it. I suppose that means that letter is a forgery then. :rolleyes: Even today, and certainly back in ancient times, it was common to have a secretary who did you actually physical writing for you.
Play the misdirection game with someone else.
See, you wont even answer questions.
well Czarcasm play your little “Just Asking Questions” game with someone else. When you are willing to come up with your very own facts or cites or hell- even a opinion, then come back. You got nuttin.
If I don’t answer your question, I’m the one playing the “Just Asking Questions” game?
WTFF?
Yep.
Some apostles’ seemed to have slippery identities and pseudonyms. Simon or Peter or Cephas; James or Jacob; Bartholomew or Nathanael; Thomas or Didymus; Matthew or Levi; Thaddaeus or Jude or James or Lebbaeus. Since they were no longer subject to arrest when their names were listed, we can’t blame justifiable anonymity. I’ll go with the oral tradition aka telephone tag over decades.
First: Upon this rock, I build my church!
Tenth: Rocky and Bullwinkle were left in the lurch.
Twentieth: Rocky Balboa sold a lot of merchandise.
Thirtieth: Rocks in my shoes make my feet hurt.
Fortieth: Fock this! Only aphids have virgin births!
Fiftieth: None of them… knows what any of this is worth.
From Jesus to Dylan in fifty passes. It’s easy.
One often reads or talks about chains involving long-lived people, e.g. Stephen Jay Gould tells of how excited he was to meet a very old paleontologist who, as a very young man, had worked with some other famous paleontologist who in turn had once known Charles Darwin.
It sounds like Jesus --> John the Beloved --> Polycarp provides such a linkage for the historical Jesus. Polycarp’s historicity is not in doubt (I don’t think: with this crew we can’t be sure of much! :p); but what about the notion that John the Apostle lived to age 90(*)? Is this just based on the word of Polycarp and Papias?
But whether he was actually the Beloved Apostle or not, it sounds like Polycarp met a very old man going by ‘John’ who’d known Jesus of Nazareth personally. Hmmmmm.
(* - It is a common misconception among Dopers that people did not live to very old ages in ancient times. This confusion is caused by life expectancy statistics, which are affected by high child mortality more than by 65-year olds not living for another decade or two.)
Uhhhh… Jesus renamed Simon to be ‘Peter’ — surely this story is very well known. And ‘Cephas’ is Aramaic for ‘Peter.’ * Am I mistaken, or was this the first usage of ‘Peter’ as a personal name?*
And, uhhh … though it mightn’t be obvious, ‘James’ and ‘Jacob’ are cognates, and neither is Greek (Ιακώβ / Iakov - Old Testament or Ιάκωβος / Iakovos - New Testament) nor Aramaic (Yaʻqub?).
Diego, Diegu, Giaco, Giacomino, Giacomo, Giagu, Hakob, Iacob, Iacobus, Iacomus, Iacopo, Iacu, Iago, Iakob, Iakopo, Iakov, Iakovos, Iyakub, Jaakob, Jaakoppi, Jacme, Jacob, Jacobus, Jacques, Jacum, Jacó, Jago, Jaime, Jaimé, Jakab, Jakob, Jakobus, Jakop, Jakov, Jakub, Jakue, Jakup, James, Jamie, Jaume, Jeames, Jeams, Jákup, Koba, Köbi, Santiago, Seumas, Séamas, Thiago, Xacobe, Xaime, Xácome, Ya’aqov, Ya’qob, Yaʻqub, Yaakov, Yacquub, Yakobo, Yakobus, Yakov, Yakup, Yaqub, Zhaqip — they’re all the same guy!
The two bishops and others didnt just “meet” John, they lived with him ,leanred from him- along with others of John’s Disciples- for decades. There was a religious retreat in Ephesus.
And yes, it doesn’t strain credulity to think that of a dozen adult men, one lived to be 90 or so.
Tradionally speaking, or what conservative source you want to go with here?
There are generally two schools of thought on this, one group is that most traditional and conservative scholarship take this view. Earlier church fathers have been arguing for John for some time. The other is mainstream scholarship of higher criticism, which thinks the evidence for it is weak. It must be something more than an unnamed “beloved disciple”, that people have to speculate as to who it is, and there were other candidates that have been suggested including one not being the most flattering. Could it be, like is so many other places, this is yet another literary device serving another purpose?
I never heard of him until now, so I’ve got some catching up to do. I went to wiki to see who was proposing such things. He’s a wild one, I’ll say that.
Although deceased now, his works go back over a half a century, others quite a few decades. Wiki says he was a liberal theologian and that he has support of conservatives and traditionalist on him wanting to date the entire NT much much earlier than anyone has ever proposed (maybe a few have before), thinking it was all written before 64. Wow. He also thinks the evidence he has uncovered shows all 13 epistles belong to Paul. Wow again. Not only that, Matthew he wants to date as early as 40, John as early as 40 too, Mark as early as 45, Luke as early as 50s. He does give a range of dates sometimes spanning a decade to two, but those are the earliest dates he gives on the wiki site. Doesn’t elaborate in the wiki article on this evidence, what arguments can get him to think such a thing? Gosh, I have lots of questions.
Start with the destruction of the Temple. This has always been the internal evidence in Mark 13 (and other gospels)and the prophecy of Jesus with the destruction of it. Also using Josephus as the dating of the destruction of the temple of 70AD. Some say, the writer of the gospel may have seen the turmoil, and would have risked in advance of it being a prophecy for a few years earlier. Who would risk being wrong if that prophecy was made many decades prior to the Temple’s destruction?
How does that add up? I might be missing something, or that is a typo in wiki. Are conservative scholars wanting to make it all an actual divine prophecy?
Irenaeus is the first to have all of their gospels with their names on it around 185. A few were maybe getting quoted from mid-second century. That is already a huge time span, but by going even decades earlier than what much of mainstream scholarship is going with, that creates an even greater amount of time of silence, that nobody is quoting these scriptures.
His work has been out for many decades, here we are today in 2020, why do you suppose most modern scholars of biblical history hasn’t taken it up? If there was something to it, he would have attracted a bigger following than the traditionalists, I would think.
If they were facts, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, and there wouldn’t be such a great divide between traditionalists and mainstream scholarship.
Have time for Papias. How can you be so confident in him when Eusebius brings up many credulous stories told by him–although he has little room to talk himself-- and so much of Papias is unreliable going against tradition, the Catholic Church and Eusebius acknowledge that, as does today’s scholars including Erhman. Eusebius refers to him as a man of little intelligence, and was a man of very small mind, if we may judge by his own words, but elsewhere he praises him as * a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures [OT] (go figure).* He could still have been an important source for the historicity of Jesus if mainstream scholarship deemed him reliable. They do not, but the traditionalists still think he is.
My point was not that some names aren’t Hebrew, nor did I note names translated in varied languages. I’m quite aware of many versions of James, thank you. I responded to ASL v2.0’s comment: The idea that we have “known facts” about any apostles apart from maybe (maybe) their name is questionable in its own way. Is is possible to know who were Bartholomew or Nathanael, Thomas or Didymus, Matthew or Levi, Thaddaeus or Jude or James or Lebbaeus? They can all be placed in the mythology, sure, with one name or another. Oral traditions aren’t error-checked. Scribal entries aren’t consistent*. Believers are free to believe as they wish. It’s fun.
- Some gospel tales are found only in later manuscripts. A scribe thought an anecdote SOUNDED good and wrote it in the margin. The next scribe moved the marginal note into the main text. Voila, it’s Gospel now! Or some bit of text looked rough so a scribe smoothed it out, rendered cleverly. Or they just mis-copied, fucked up - user error. No, I would not risk my life on scribal accuracy.
From normal run of the mill scholar and historians. No one doubts those were real people and authors.
Yes, and so? So one opinion is nice and the other not so nice. You can say that about every single important person who has ever lived, even Abraham Lincoln.
Whether or not every word he wrote is the trust is besides the point. He was a real bishop who wrote stuff. He lived with John for a while. He never claimed to have met Jesus, and in fact couldn’t of.
The odds of a 30 year old male to live to age 90 is 25.2%. That’s for a 30 year old in 2020.
In 1950, a 65-year old could expect to live another 12.8 years. In 1900, a 65-year old was expected to live to 77.
So no - your claims that it was common for adults to live to the age of 90 (where “common” means 1-out-of-12) seems false.
I never used the word “common” I used “once a man got past 30, 90 wasnt that rare back then.” * Wasnt that rare. *
If you jumped through those hoops and survived your teens, 20s, and 30s, you’d have no reason to think you wouldn’t lead a nice, long life. In fact, those who reached the age of 60 would, on average, die after their 70th birthdays.
*This belief that our species may have reached the peak of longevity is also reinforced by some myths about our ancestors: it’s common belief that ancient Greeks or Romans would have been flabbergasted to see anyone above the age of 50 or 60, for example.
…
In fact, while medical advancements have improved many aspects of healthcare, the assumption that human life span has increased dramatically over centuries or millennia is misleading.
…
The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all – Walter Scheidel
“There is a basic distinction between life expectancy and life span,” says Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel, a leading scholar of ancient Roman demography. “The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all, as far as I can tell.”
Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35.
…
If one’s thirties were a decrepit old age, ancient writers and politicians don’t seem to have got the message. In the early 7th Century BC, the Greek poet Hesiod wrote that a man should marry “when you are not much less than 30, and not much more”. Meanwhile, ancient Rome’s ‘cursus honorum’ – the sequence of political offices that an ambitious young man would undertake – didn’t even allow a young man to stand for his first office, that of quaestor, until the age of 30 (under Emperor Augustus, this was later lowered to 25; Augustus himself died at 75). To be consul, you had to be 43 – eight years older than the US’s minimum age limit of 35 to hold a presidency.
In the 1st Century, Pliny devoted an entire chapter of The Natural History to people who lived longest. Among them he lists the consul M Valerius Corvinos (100 years), Cicero’s wife Terentia (103), a woman named Clodia (115 – and who had 15 children along the way), and the actress Lucceia who performed on stage at 100 years old.
Then there are tombstone inscriptions and grave epigrams, such as this one for a woman who died in Alexandria in the 3rd Century BC. “She was 80 years old, but able to weave a delicate weft with the shrill shuttle”, the epigram reads admiringly.*
So, again, as I said- once you got past 30, 90 was by no means extraordinary.