John, Jesus, and History: Volume 1, Critical Appraisals of Critical Views

[Picaro]

Available at the link here:

John, Jesus, and History: Volume 1, Critical Appraisals of Critical Views : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

For the scholarly types. As for myself, Bruce Metzger and Darrell Bock have definitively rebutted the Gnostic rubbish and the arguments of Ehrman and Paigels et al, but this overview is a good source of sources, along with some excellent discussions on various issues in or with John.

 

[godsandmen]

Skimming over it, it looks like an interesting book. I might even have to read it one of these days. However, it hardly rebuts Ehrman and Paigels et al. Basically the author's premise is his belief that the Gospel of John should simply be included in the conversation about the historical Jesus, instead of excluded from it, which is what most scholars do (and for good reason). He is not in any way trying to 'debunk' scholarly consensus. His goal, it seems to me, is simply to suggest that John may have more historical value than it is often given. I personally see very little in the G of J that can add much to the conversation about the historical Jesus, inasmuch as John is more of a theological treatise than anything else. John does contain certain historical and geographic elements that are more accurate than that which is found in the synoptic gospels, but that's not a reason to suppose that anything written in that gospel actually goes back to the historical Jesus. It is maybe conceivable that the short, pithy sayings of Jesus contained in the synoptics could have been passed on orally through the years following the crucifixion, but the long, drawn-out complex discourses of Jesus in the G of J (some of which drone on for several chapters) could not possibly have been accurately passed on orally. Additionally, the contrasts and contradictions between John and the synoptics, both literally and theologically, make John highly suspicious. And of course the hostility in John towards "the Jews" has always been a problem, as history shows.

Since there is nothing "Gnostic" about the arguments of Ehrman and others, I can only assume that by making that accusation, you are showing nothing more than your own hostility to their work.

I personally am convinced that John's gospel, like Paul's, originated in visions and "spirit revelations" (for lack of a better term), and not in anything that goes back to a historical Jesus,

It does look like an interesting book though.