(March 4, 2024 at 8:17 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 4, 2024 at 6:18 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Herodotus? Why would he be relevant with Jesus when he wrote centuries before Jesus was even a thing? Or, for that matter, Livy, who died before Jesus would have started his ministry and whose works only went down to about 9 BC (with the surviving parts only reaching 166 BC)?

I literally just the day before yesterday had some idiot post an unsourced meme of alleged "historians" he claimed knew about Jesus and that was one of the names on the list. Plato Aristotle and Homer too. This was the idiot's "evidence".

Somehow, I doubt that textual reliability is just down to number of copies and how long it took for any surviving copies to be written down. Then again, if they counted the actual textual variants, it’d probably have torpedoed their claims.

Also, how did they only get seven manuscripts for Plato when there’s a minimum of 250 known?

Do any of the attributed John writings rise to the level of controversy?

(March 4, 2024 at 7:17 pm)brewer Wrote: Do any of the attributed John writings rise to the level of controversy?

The controversy is over the authorship, not the content. Personally, I can’t see that it matters. It’s like positing that the Iliad wasn’t written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.

But I take your point - ‘controversy’ is too strong a word. It’s really more of a scholarly dispute.

Boru

People usually say the Gospel of John has no authentication because it explicitly declares Jesus divinity. I believe that It has a place in the bible because the Gospel of John makes sense to spiritual eyes and in the context of Jesus miracles.