John's Gospel & Epistles

Bro. Curtis,

There isn't an "official" Catholic position on issues relating to the dating of scripture. Scholars can fight about it all they want!

Probably the majority opinion would be "sometime in the 90's." I would imagine that this is based partly on the contents of the Gospel, and partly on external historical evidence.

But frankly, I'm not a big devotee of "dating" questions. I'm more interested in what the Bible says than when it was written. (Although I will concede that in some cases we can gain insights into the meaning of a particular text based on when it was written).

God bless,

Mark

 

Brother Curtis,

All of the Gospels end at or right after the Ascension of Jesus, which would be, according to your own estimates, about 40 years before Mary's death.

It would not make structural sense to tack on an event forty years after the ascension, since the Gospels deal specifically with Jesus Christ's life; others lives are only spoken of in direct relation to Christ's life.

God bless,

Grant

 

Curtis,

The epistles are letters dealing with specific theological content. Again, just because John may have had the knoweledge is not any reason for him to throw it in a letter that was written for a different intent.

As for Revelation, I see Mary quite clearly there, and you know where I'm referring to, so this isn't going to get us very far.

God bless,

Grant

 

Mark,

Thank you for that answer. Excellent point. The Gospels are about Jesus life, death, and resurrection. John's letters were also written about specific problems in specific communities. Perhaps in response to a letter addressed to him. There is know indication that they were kind of an afterthought fill in the holes that I left out in the Gospel or a later catch up. We Catholic would also say that John did write about Mary's assumption in one of his books. Rev 12.

Further it is quite apparent that teachings were transmitted by word of mouth in apostolic times if you look at 2 Tim 2:2 and many others. The very fact that these books didn't get written until long after the resurrection may well be reason for it's ommission in the letter. It may well have been orally transmitted to the degree that there was no need to write it down explicitly. There is much else that is missing in John's letters. Did those whom John wrote to have Paul's letters. Not likely. So were they missing out on the things that Paul said. Quite apparently to me anyway, oral transmissoin was the main mode and the letters were the fillers rather than the other way around.

 

Hi Bro. Curtis,

I think this same question came up on another thread within the past few days. Maybe we should all make an agreement to track John down and ask him once we're "safely home!"

It could be a matter of dating, as you suggest. But I'd be more inclined to think that it was just due to the theological focus of John's gospel -- Christ as the incarnate Word of God, etc. John makes it pretty clear that his goal is to assist his readers in believing "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing [we] may have life in his name," and that he's not attempting to produce an encyclopedic account of everything that happened re: Jesus, his disciples, his family, etc.

Mark

P.S. -- Oops, I see the thread has moved along! The above is a response to Bro. C.'s reply to my first response.

 

Bro Curtis,

"Grant, if mary is so important in a Christian's daily life, why wouldn't John have mentioned her ? isn't that what the epistles were for ? Christian instruction ?"

Not if they had already been orally instructed about her as they had to have been orally instructed about the many teachings that were not contained in John's letters wouldn't you agree. For instance the things that Paul said to the Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, Colasians. These things were not in John's letters. It is very unlikely that they immediately recieved Paul's letters since he didn't run them through a printing press and distribute them to the world. So does that mean they did not know of them or did not recieve the specific teachings they contained (i.e. the writings of the Apostles are not redundant nor are they complete in themselves). The answer is that it is very apparent that the majority of things were passed orally.

Blessings.

 

Funny, you would think the same about things like the doctrine of the Trinity too.

If the epistles were for instruction why didn't they come right out and explain it?

Maybe you should just dump that doctrine since it's not spelled out in the epistles.

 

Another point.

When my wife tells me to go get milk. That is all she says. I could write ten pages on what I have to do to go get milk and the knowledge that I already have to have to fullfill that statement. i.e. I have to get the checkbook, know where the store is, get in the car, drive, take the right turns, and on and on and each of these steps could be broken down ad-nausium. John is writing to a group of Christians. They already have recieved a certain amount of teaching, both orally and scripturally. He does not have to get in to details on everything. He does not have to speak of things they already know. He deals with issues. If they knew of the assumption, and of course I cannot prove they did, then he would not speak of it. However I cannot prove they knew of the specific doctrines paul taught in his letters either and yet John makes no mention of them. Odd. Does this mean then that those things are not neccessary for our salvation that Paul taught. The better answer I think is that they have been taught them orally.

 

"But an event like the ascension of Mary should have been recorded,"

Your opinion based on a false assumption regarding sola scriptura.

"if it has an effect on our faith, God would not have allowed us to miss it."

He didn't. It was carried on in the traditions of the Catholic Church. Prove otherwise.

"The event in Rev 12 is symbolic, there is no literal ascension recorded there. And the dating leads me to believe it couldn't have happened, or it would have been preserved. "

Once again you give far less emphasis to oral transmission than the Bible itself does.

Do play again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "The event in Rev 12 is symbolic",

Actually, in 11:19, we see the Ark of the Covenant appear in Heaven, and in 12:1, we see a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet.

This could very well be John's way of saying that Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, now resides in heaven body and soul. It could also be purely symbolic without any of those connotations, but it's likely, and we shouldn't dismiss it outright.

God bless,

Carson

 

Bro. Curtis:

What Catholics ignore is the fact that Mary had to receive salvation just like all the others. She was in the upper room in Acts and was filled with the Spirit just like the rest.

To me the most ludicrous teaching they have was that Mary was an immaculate conception also. Well that means her mother would have been and her grandmother and great grandmother and on and on and on. All these women who had children as virgins would also have had to ascended into Heaven.

the funny thing is Mary worship did not start until hundreds of years after the poor woman was dead and gone.