Thank you for a well reasoned and detailed response. I have some similar concerns. I would agree the idea of a self contained "community" is an anachronism. If Synoptic relationships tell us anything, it is that the early Christian church was characterized by dynamic relationships of believers communicating with one another. One needs only read 1 Corinthians 1-4 for similar observations.
Another problem I see is that forgery by its very nature, is an individual enterprise. To conjecture not one, but multiple "forgers" strains credulity. The idea that the "Beloved Disciple" is a fictive character, meant to interject authority into the account may be one of Menendez's strongest points However, it could be argued, and I think quite correctly, that the "Beloved Disciple" is not necessarily the author of the text, but at most the source of the information. These are two very different phenomena, and it would be a strange way of asserting one's own veracity as an eyewitness, in my opinion. Just a few thoughts.
Thank you for a well reasoned and detailed response. I have some similar concerns. I would agree the idea of a self contained "community" is an anachronism. If Synoptic relationships tell us anything, it is that the early Christian church was characterized by dynamic relationships of believers communicating with one another. One needs only read 1 Corinthians 1-4 for similar observations.
Another problem I see is that forgery by its very nature, is an individual enterprise. To conjecture not one, but multiple "forgers" strains credulity. The idea that the "Beloved Disciple" is a fictive character, meant to interject authority into the account may be one of Menendez's strongest points However, it could be argued, and I think quite correctly, that the "Beloved Disciple" is not necessarily the author of the text, but at most the source of the information. These are two very different phenomena, and it would be a strange way of asserting one's own veracity as an eyewitness, in my opinion. Just a few thoughts.