Today, for Crafty October, I made another wreath…using trash bags! I wasn't quite sure how this was going to turn out, but once I'd tied the last piece in place and hung it up, I loved it!
Crafting is expensive, lets face it…I wish I had unlimited cash to continually craft – but I don't, so I turned to things that I have around the house, or things are cheap. I was lying in bed one night thinking of ideas for Halloween, and wanted to make a wreath using black and orange netting. Discovering that net/tulle is very expensive, that idea had to go out the window, and I thought to myself, "what about rubbish bags?".
Whilst out shopping yesterday, I saw some orange and purple trash bags, and quickly bought them, knowing that they would be the ideal colours for my Halloween wreath. Instead of buying a pre-made polystyrene wreath, which aren't cheap(!), I bought some insulating pipe from a DIY store, and created my own ring by securing it with brown tape. For the price of one wreath from the craft shop, I can have 3 or 4 of these homemade rings!
I started out by tying a loop in a strip of black bag, so that it could be hung up when finished and I also wrapped more plastic bag around the ring to cover it.
With that done, I then cut strips of each colour and just started to tie them around the wreath, using a double knot.
When I first started tying plastic bag strips to the wreath, I thought about cutting the excess down, and pouffing them out, but that didn't really work, so I kept on tying until I ran out of room, and would decide what to do next afterwards.
When I saw the finished result, I was more than happy with the look, so other than roughing up the ends of the bags, I left it as it was!
I love the colours – orange, purple and black scream Halloween at me, and I love the striped effect going around the inside of the wreath. In short, I love my Trash Bag Halloween Wreath!
I just LOVE LOVE LOVE the wreath!!!!
It turned out so much better than expected!


text:
Q: Configuring Exim4 on Debian 7 and PHP I followed this tutorial on Linode to setup a send only mail server:
https://library.linode.com/email/exim/send-only-mta-debian-6-squeeze
It works but with some oddities.
Sending email with PHP works as long as only 1 email address is supplied. If
I use a comma separated list in the to field it seems to not fully work. Or not all the addresses get the email.
My config looks like;
dc_eximconfig_configtype='internet'
dc_other_hostnames='isthatbeergood.com; themoviepostersite.com; parkereatery.com;  stratford.parkereatery.com; trumbull.parkereatery.com; richtestani.com; localhost;'
dc_local_interfaces='127.0.0.1'
dc_readhost=''
dc_relay_domains=''
dc_minimaldns='false'
dc_relay_nets=''
dc_smarthost=''
CFILEMODE='644'
dc_use_split_config='false'
dc_hide_mailname=''
dc_mailname_in_oh='true'
dc_localdelivery='maildir_home'

While most emails wont even come to the hostnames since it send only, will it send to any address?
Here is the end of /var/log/exim4/mainlog
2014-06-20 10:37:29 1WxzwV-0008DP-Vi => richtestani@mac.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=mx3.mac.com.akadns.net [17.172.34.64]
2014-06-20 10:37:29 1WxzwV-0008DP-Vi Completed
2014-06-20 10:41:04 1Wy000-0008Do-SH <= www-data@mail.damesandthugs.com U=www-data P=local S=531
2014-06-20 10:41:05 1Wy000-0008Do-SH => sandman@gmail.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [74.125.29.26] X=TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com"
2014-06-20 10:41:05 1Wy000-0008Do-SH => richtestani@mac.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=mx2.mac.com.akadns.net [17.172.34.11]
2014-06-20 10:41:05 1Wy000-0008Do-SH Completed

Interesting it says my mac.com address is complete, but I never got the email. Gmail made it but no completed message.
Any help here would be great!
Rich

A: 1) Email providers will verify the sender when they receive an email.  How they do this depends upon the specific provider, but some will actually connect out to your mail server using the MX records for the sender's domain and check to see if the sender actually exists.  These are aptly named "sender callouts".  If it fails or is rejected, the email provider is more likely to classify your email as spam and/or drop it.  The construction of your system does not allow those sender callouts to succeed:
$ swaks --to www-data@mail.damesandthugs.com --from todd@mrball.net
--quit-after rcpt
=== Trying mail.damesandthugs.com:25...
*** Error connecting 0.0.0.0 to mail.damesandthugs.com:25:
***     IO::Socket::INET: connect: timeout

2) Reputation is a BIG part of all email spam scoring nowadays.  If your IP is just now starting to send emails, the reputation is neutral.  If your domain is just now starting to send emails, the reputation is neutral.  Neutral is frequently considered "not good" when it comes to reputation, and the only way to fix it is to slowly ramp up the volume of good email from your IP and/or domain.  Sudden changes (big deltas) are viewed badly by reputation systems.
3) If your domain is just registered, that actually counts heavily against you since that's a frequent tactic of "drive by spamming".

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Title: Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 15, No. 13. July 17, 1952
Editor: T. H. Hill
Publication details: Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association, 17 July 1952, Wellington
Part of: Salient : An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z.
Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 15, No. 13. July 17, 1952
Whose World Well Lost?
Sir.—I read the article by the E.U. in your last issue with interest Some of the insinuations showed full well that they themselves have-not given much thought to nor under, stood the human race. Any rational being must think seriously about the pros and cons of religion. We must decide whether there is anything in it for if there is the decision is important. Perhaps the reason for there being a "handful" of students in the University who are certain of their belief is that this modern education has taught us to reason, infer and deduct. ("Believing where we can not prove"—Tennyson—In Memoriam is perhaps their motto). They talk about tolerance. But do they realise that it cuts both ways? We listen to them and tolerate them in that way but we do object to having their beliefs jammed down our throats, But do they tolerate the unbelievers, oh no! One members of the E.U. to whom I spoke forcibly about my views walked off when he saw that he was making no impression with his argument and now acts in a lukewarm way towards me. Is that Christianity? As R. Buchanan says in his "Book of Orm": "Believing has a core of unbelieving. Besides the Bible what proof have the believers of the existence of a God? We may as well place our "faith" in the Koran."
One last word: It's easy to be afraid in a gang. It's easy to cast one's fears and burdens on an Immaterial object. But your six feet of earth is all you own in the long run and then—rot.
P.S. To those good, pure and righteous men: "The worst men give oft the best advice."—Bailey "Festus."
Sir,-I wish to thank "Salient" for the lengthy report of my address to the Literary Society on American Poetry, and also your reporter. "B.D." for the unenviable task of having to render down to "Salient'-size the mass of facts I presented. My method of trying to squeeze as much as possible into the alloted time must have made it difficult to report. As, however, one or two critical readers may hold one or two errors of fact against me, I should like to make a few adjustments:—
Harriet Monroe founded Poetry Chicago—not Ezra Pound, who was its first European editor. Pound was guest editor (as far as I know) of only one special issue of the Catholic Review. Hart Crane's "The Bridge" I saw as an allegorical pathway to last Atlantis rather than heaven, as the report states.
I did, and do not, think that MacLeish stood alone as a satirist during the 30's; nor would I care to go on record as finding that Cumming's poems swarl all over the page without maintaining their solid virtues. Cummings is also a painter, and the shape of his verse of the page is important to him. American poets hardly "sought refuge in neutrality but I think that their remoteness in 1939-40, from the scene of action, allowed them space of time in which to get a perspective.
I hope that these corrections do not seem too carping, but it is as well to make them.
Louis Johnson.
[Mr. Johnson mentions the "Literary Society." Many people have made the error of calling this small group of people Interested in the study of literature the "Literary Society." This group was organised from the remainder of various, similar groups extant last year by a member of the English department staff. It is not the Literary Society affiliated or Incorporated in the Students' Association as it has not held an A.G.M. and elected officers.—Ed.]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Truthful Tidbits - Bits and Pieces of My Life: I'm BLOG NAPPING!!! Why? Because it's Linda Sue's Birthday!!!!
I'm BLOG NAPPING!!! Why? Because it's Linda Sue's Birthday!!!!
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature! Do you think she'll be mad at me for Blog Napping?NAH!
Sneaky sneaky me! I'm so glad I guessed your password right!
Have a lovely, oh most lovely birthday!
And not that old in reality. hee hee Sixty is as sixty does... Okay, I'm done now and off to bed.
Happy, happy birthday Momma Linda! I hope you have a beautiful and wonderful day!
A VERY, VERY Happy Birthday Momma Linda! I am visiting as a follower from Lynette's blog. I became a follower of you today! Yippee! Looking forward to knowing you better! I LOVE hearing all about your family through Lynette! God Bless you all!
I hope you have a very blessed day!
I hope you have a wonderful day and that your crazy daughter made you smile when she hijacked your blog.
Hope your special day brings many wonderful blessings.
Happy, Happy Birthday to a wonderful friend! I hope you have such a special day. I thank the Lord for bringing you into my life through blogging, and sharing your special sunshine and joy!
Happy Birthday Linda! Will you be having another "wild" party at your house or did the 50s party cover your big day too? Don't just celebrate today, make sure you include this weekend...I say milk it for all you've got!! Enjoy!
Happy birthday to beautiful, beautiful LindaGirl!!
Happy Happy Birthday! Hope it was wonderful!
Thanks again Lynnette...this was fun!
And thanks everyone for your Birthday Wishes!
HaPpY HaPpy HaPpY BIrthday to a great Lady and bloggin Buddy!!!
Someone's Having A Birthday Today!


After a successful career recording and performing music in his teens, Gary completed his first qualification at the Australian Film and TV School with luminaries like Phillip Noyce, Gillian Armstrong and Jane Campion. He went on to Produce and Direct both film and television in Australia and Britain.
In the early eighties, he was pivotal in the establishment of Sydney Public Television station Metro TV while studying law at Sydney University. In 1984 he completed his first public listing on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) of public company, ProMedia Ltd.
Over the next three decades through his family office, he has undertaken investments in education, compliance, new tech, media, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Gary has played an entrepreneurial role in around 30 IPO's in markets around the world. Many of these companies either continue to operate or have been sold. Before Public Democracy was formed, compliance training company Integratec Ltd was de-listed and sold to the Washington Post Group.
Along with his formal training in film and TV, law, economics, and broadcast engineering, his experience in compliance and corporate structure has allowed him to contribute at the Board level to many organizations over the last 30 years.
Gary has spent his career pursuing opportunities to simplify complex systems into practical and feasible models that support individual integrity, specific outcomes, and an understanding of universal connection. He has facilitated Australian Government policy development, advised Governments on economic and technology policy globally, founded an independent school in regional Australia, created a protective sanctuary for wild horses, and been a pioneer in developing thought leadership around data-backed currency and the applications for micro-distributions of wealth afforded by blockchain technologies.


Throughout the world, families have been at the centre of the vineyards and Australia is no different. In Heart and Soul, Graeme Lofts tells the stories of twelve of our country's wine pioneers - multi-generational families that represent 17 growing regions and 48 generations of winemakers who have have over 1200 years of experience between them.
These names are all so familiar: Brown Brothers, Campbells, d'Arenberg, De Bortoli, Henschke, Howard Park, Jim Barry, McWilliams, Tahbilk, Taylors, Tyrells and Yalumba. This book puts personalities, histories and stories to the names that truly represent the heart and soul of the Australian wine industry.
They are Australia's First Families of Wine, a group that was formed in 2009 to modestly showcase a representative and diverse range of the best of Australian wines with a focus onregional and iconic drops.
As well as each having a long history, they also share common values and beliefs, a commitment to environmental responsibility and best practice, a custodial approach to some of Australia's iconic 'sacred sites of wine' in their trust, and of course a huge love of every facet of wine.
Buy Heart and Soul now and delve into this rich Australian wine history that's also an entertaining read along the way.
Note: Wiley and Sons reserves the right to check your VisitVineyards.com subscriber status.
Win a wine book twin pack full of fun and cocktailsWin Pizzas and Flatbreads Did you win the Prosecco from Innocent Bystander? Win boutique Tasmanian wine from MilfordWin Kitchen Brewing and start your own craft brewery!


text:
Rafa Ballestiero
Notes on Essentialism
How to Survive in the Era of Abundance
The Essentialist Rebel's guide to prioritization.
On the first post of this short series of notes on the book Essentialism, we reviewed a few problems caused by our world of excessive Abundance, and how the Essentialist paradigm-shift can address them.
The original definition of priority in English (in the 1400s) didn't have a plural form. Its meaning was the very first or "prior". It was only half a millennium after, in the 20th century, that the plural "priorities" started to be used. In the early days of the Era of Abundance (a.k.a. the 2nd Industrial Revolution), we went from having one single "first thing" to many different "first" things.
A graph from Google Ngram Viewer showing the appearance of "priorities" in the 1900's in British English.
As a mathematician by training, the logic of having many "first" things eludes me, but such is the logic of our times. Nowadays, we don't even have a few key priorities. We have different levels of priorities: "high", "medium" and "low". We have priorities A through Z. We've used and abused the "priority" to the point that it has lost all meaning.
This bastardization of the concept of "priority" (highlighted by Greg McKeown, the author of Essentialism) illustrates three major fallacies that rule our lives in the Era of Abundance:
Decision Amnesia: "I do it because I have to."
Efficiency Procrastination: "The faster I get things done, the more things I can do today."
Trade-off Ignorance: "I can do both."
Read on to find out how an Essentialist Rebel, who opposes the norm of Abundance, would reframe these fallacies into strengths.
Decision Amnesia
In the Era of Abundance, we tell ourselves "I do it because I have to." The Essentialist Rebel thinks instead "I do it because I choose to".
A choice is composed of two elements: the options available and the act of deciding. Unfortunately, we've been taught to focus too much on the options and not enough on the conscious act itself. Although options are often externally imposed on us, our innate ability to decide cannot be lost or stolen, but it can be forgotten.
And, it's easy to forget. Who has never delayed making an important decision out of fear, confusion or uncertainty? Maybe we're considering a change in careers, breaking up with a partner or finally moving to a new city. Whatever the conundrum, we'll keep postponing the decision until the "right time" comes; and, until that "right time" is long gone.
Indecision is a decision unto itself. And it's the worst kind of decision, it's the one that makes us a victim of the defaults, which are seldom within our control. Greg McKeown knows this better than anyone:
When we surrender our ability to choose, something or someone else will step in to choose for us.
He started his career studying law, even though he seemed certain that it wasn't his vocation. His failure to make the decision not law school meant that the default option of law school prevailed. His reason for persevering in his studies is familiar advise: "keep your options open". What good is hoarding many "open" options when we know we'll never choose them, anyway? As shown in the last post (and in Paradox of Choice), an excessive abundance of options can lead to choice overload, and so might not be conductive to the best decisions.
What are you doing because you have to?
What would you do because you choose to?
Efficiency Procrastination
In the Era of Abundance, we say to ourselves "the faster I get things done, the more things I can do today". The Essentialist Rebel thinks instead "I'll do the few things that really matter, no matter how long they take".
Essentialism replaces our fetish for efficiency with a desire for effectiveness. It's easy to confuse the two — it happens to me all the time — so here's a good way to tell the two apart:
Effectiveness relates to strategic decisions: it's doing the right things to achieve an objective. Example: a GPS will find the most effective route with the shortest distance to a destination.
Efficiency relates to tactical performance: it's doing things the right way to achieve an objective with fewer resources (i.e. saving time, effort, money… ). Example: an efficient engine will get you to your destination faster.
Chess is about effectiveness and not efficiency. It's all about the check-mate, not in how many moves it happens.
At school, in business and in life, we're encouraged to strive for efficiency. Since we have a long to-do list, we want to get through each task fast so that we can move on to the next one.
Being efficient without regard to effectiveness is the default mode of the universe.
— Tim Ferriss
Most task don't propel us towards our goals; they just make us feel and look busy. In fact, according to the 80/20 rule (a.k.a the Pareto principle), there are only a few vital tasks will lead to the overwhelming majority of outcomes. Roughly 20% of one's efforts will lead to roughly 80% of the results.
Focusing on effectiveness is focusing solely on the essential tasks; those of highest leverage. Effectiveness is about prioritizing the essential and letting go of all other tasks that would normally clutter your to-do list and mind. If you only have one or two tasks on your to-do list, you can take your time to get them done.
What's the 20% of tasks that would make you more effective?
What's the 80% of tasks that you should stop doing altogether?
Trade-off Ignorance
In the Era of Abundance, we say to ourselves "I can do both". The Essentialist Rebel thinks instead "I can do anything, but not everything".
In the Era of Abundance, we want to have our cake and eat it, too. We look at trade-offs in a bad light, as if the trade-off was stealing something that was rightfully ours. A trade-off is concession, a renouncement, a relinquishment, a surrender, a — okay, I got carried away with the thesaurus — you get the idea: it's bad. So, we often just ignore them. As McKeown writes in Essentialism:
We can try to avoid the reality of trade-offs, but we can't escape them.
Ignoring the ruthless reality of trade-offs can be perilous. Michel Porter, a professor at the Harvard Business School, warns companies of straddling their strategy. When a business adopts a new strategy while persisting with their original one at the same time, it is straddling. It doesn't only happen in business,
Programmers know the benefits of everything and the trade-offs of nothing.
- Rich Hickey, creator of Clojure
When we say yes to everything, we're saying no to the essential. When we believe we can do it all, we spread ourselves too thin. Inevitably, the quality of our work suffers on all fronts and sooner or later, we fail.
A trade-off is a blessing in disguise. They don't prevent us from having ALL that we want, but instead they provide an opportunity to choose exactly the ONE thing we need: a priority. They provide an opportunity to identify and refine the essential.
What are you "straddling" right now in life?
Which trade-offs can you welcome as an opportunity, instead of a challenge?
The Era of Abundance has given us many, many advances in the last century. It has also caused many, many issues (beyond the three fallacies I've mentioned above) in our lives, our societies, and most crucially, our environment. In the fog of abundance, we've lost our priorities as individuals and as civilizations. By focusing on our essential priority, by remembering our ability to choose, by recognizing we can't do everything, we can live with more meaning, more impact and, hopefully, a little more wisdom.
I'll leave you with a haiku written by ChatGPT (it's worth noting that nothing else in the post was written with it):
Era of abundance,
Priorities hard to discern,
Essentialism, key.
Stay tuned for more notes on Essentialism.
More from Rafa Ballestiero
Co-founder of Behale. Passionate about mindfulness, habit-forming product design, systems entrepreneurship and serene software.
POSIVIBEMAN
TRUST YOUR JOURNEY
Ekaterina Lommas
Trisha Dunbar (She/Her)
In Fitness And In Health
What Wrinkles Can Reveal About Your Character
Be Grateful For Your Stuggles
Abdulaziz M Alhamdan, M.Sc.
NEW- Fear of Meaningless
Sara Orellana-Paape
The difference between winning a battle and winning a war
Debbra Lupien, Voice of the Akashic Records
Hope * Healing * Humour
How To Feel Good And Thrive During Turbulent Times
Martin Stellar
Always Crashing in the Same Car


There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.
As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John's Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John's Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B's ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.3 Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.
Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus' testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability. The list of fathers include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Further, the Muratorian Canon suggests that John was given the commission to write this gospel after Andrew received a vision indicating that he would do so. If one were to sift out the possible accretions in this statement, the bare fact of Johannine authorship is not disturbed. Finally, the anti-Marcionite Prologue also affirms Johannine authorship.
In countering this external evidence are two considerations. (1) There would be a strong motivation on the part of patristic writers to suggest authorship by an apostle. Further, the internal evidence, when compared with the synoptics, strongly suggests John as the leading candidate. But this is off-set by the remarkably early documentary testimony of Johannine authorship4 as well as early patristic hints (Ignatius, Justin, Tatian). Further, P52—the earliest fragment for any NT book—contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is to be dated as early as 100 CE5; and the Papyrus Egerton 2, which is to be dated at about the same time, draws on both John and synoptics for its material.6 Although the early patristic hints and the early papyri do not explicitly affirm Johannine authorship, they do illustrate its early and widespread use, an implicit testimony to its acceptance by the church. Indeed, there seems never to have been a time when this gospel bore any name other than John's.
(2) There is some evidence of an early martyrdom for John (based on Mark 10:39) which, assuming a late date for the production of this gospel, would preclude Johannine authorship. However, the earliest patristic evidence for this supposition is from the fifth century (Philip of Side and the Syrian martyrology of 411 CE), from sources which show themselves to be unreliable as historical guides in other matters. Further, in our dating of John's Gospel, even an early martyrdom would not preclude Johannine authorship, though it would preclude Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse.
In conclusion, the external evidence is quite strong for Johannine authorship, being widely diffused and early.
Two sets of internal evidence will be examined: (1) Westcott's famous "Concentric Proofs"7 and (2) other incidental pieces of evidence in support of Johannine authorship. We will reserve internal evidence against Johannine authorship for the next section.
He quotes occasionally from the Hebrew text (cf. 12:40; 13:18; 19:37); he was acquainted with the Jewish feasts such as the Passover (2:13; [5:1]; 6:4; 11:55), Tabernacles (7:37), and Dedication/Hanukkah (10:22); he was acquainted with Jewish customs such as the arranging of water pots (ch. 2) and burial customs (11:38-44).
He stated that he had beheld Christ's glory (1:14) using a verb (θεάομαι) which in NT Greek always bears the meaning of at least physical examination (cf. BAGD); there are incidental comments about his being there (Judas slipped out at night [13:16] 4:6 [the sixth hour], etc.).
He has an intimate knowledge of what happened among the disciples—cf. 2:11; 4:27; 6:19, etc.
He is exact in mentioning names of characters in the book. If he is so careful, why does he omit the name of John unless he is John? Further, his mention of John the Baptist merely as "John" (1:6) implies that if he is to show up in the narrative another name must be given him—such as "the beloved disciple"—or else confusion would result.
Beyond the concentric proofs of Westcott, there are other pieces of incidental evidence.
(1) The author uses the historical present more than any other gospel writer (161 times) and in such a way as to indicate vividness of portrayal. One should note the especially heavy use in chapter 4 and the passion narrative. This suggests the vivid recollections of an eyewitness.
(3) The beloved disciple shows up with Peter on several occasions; belongs to a group of seven in 21:2 (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others)—and here, he must be one of the last four unnamed disciples; and nowhere in this gospel does John the disciple appear by name (even though he is named twenty times in the synoptics). This strongly infers either that the author of this work was absolutely unaware of John the disciple—a possibility which seems quite remote—or he was John the disciple.
(4) Independence from the synoptic tradition coupled with early and widespread acceptance by the church. The fact that over 90% of the material in this gospel is unique to itself, coupled with its early acceptance by the church, argues very strongly that it was authored by some authority. This, coupled with the further fact that John was widely employed in early gnostic circles yet was not thereby abandoned by the orthodox, argues quite compellingly that all quarters recognized its authority. A work not done by an apostle would hardly have met such a reception.
All in all, there are many excellent reasons—both external and internal—for acceptance of the fourth gospel as having been authored by John the apostle.
Although the identification of the beloved disciple with the apostle John has been alleged as a proof of Johannine authorship, one problem plagues this certitude: would any writer be so arrogant as to identify himself in such a manner? However, not only is ἀγαπάω rather than φιλέω used in this designation (suggesting more of a commendation of the subject than the object), 12 but John, in his old age, might well have adopted an affectionate term given to him by others in this self-description. "Far from it being an evidence of arrogance, as is so often suggested, it may perhaps be regarded as a sign of modesty."13 Thus, even though the rich young ruler, Lazarus, and even Nathanael have been suggested as the beloved disciple, the evidence for such is not only hardly more than speculation, but rests on a faulty assumption that the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is a note of arrogance.
There is one other possibility which might well be called the standard critical view today: the beloved disciple is symbolic, a figure, and not a real historical personage. In this view the beloved disciple represents any person who embraces Christ as his Redeemer. Although there is a certain attraction to this view in light of the inroads that literary criticism is making on NT interpretation, it suffers from three problems, the last of which seems decisive: (1) "the almost incidental allusions to the beloved disciple in the gospel do not read like symbolic allusions";14 (2) it lacks parallels with other ancient literature which would clue us in that the beloved disciple should be taken as non-historical; and (3) the glaring omission of John the apostle from this gospel is unaccounted for on this hypothesis.
Where John and the synoptics do overlap (only 8-10% of the time), there seem to be inherent contradictions, especially in three areas: the cleansing of the temple, the presentation of dominical sayings, and the chronology of the Lord's supper. In response, we should note the following.
All the vogue until the discovery of the Qumran MSS, the attribution of hellenistic thought to the writer of the fourth gospel seemed to nail the coffin shut on Johannine authorship. However, with the absolute dualism found in Qumran which parallels both Hellenism and John, scholarly opinion has swung very far in the other direction: this gospel is very Jewish! Still, full weight must be given to F. C. Grant's warning that the relative amount of parallels with Qumran vs. "the vast array of parallels" with Hellenism cannot be used to deny a strong hellenistic influence.18 The real issue, therefore, is simple: Would a Galilean fisherman ever be able to gain such an acquaintance with Hellenism? In response, it need only be mentioned that (a) hellenistic thought pervaded Galilee in the first century; (b) John , as son of a fishing magnate, would probably have received a decent education, exposing him to much Hellenism;19 (c) the targeted audience, being Gentiles, might well have prompted the author to shape his material with a hellenistic strain which they could comprehend and appreciate; and (d) John could well have employed an amanuensis (as early patristic writers seem to hint at) for the writing of this gospel—a person who could have easily packaged the material with a hellenistic hue at John's beckoning.20 Thus, though I am not nearly as optimistic as many today who want to pour all of John's dualism into a first-century Jewish mold, neither would I argue that a hellenistic coloring denies Johannine authorship. Indeed, the hellenistic overtones, in my view, argue strongly for Johannine authorship, when coupled with date and occasion of writing.
Guthrie lists three basic alternatives to authorship by John the apostle: (1) John of Jerusalem, (2) John the elder, and (3) non-Johannine theories.
(1) Regarding John of Jerusalem, the only evidence which might support this would be the fact that the author had entrance into the high priest's house. But apart from no shred of external evidence to support this, there is no reason not to attribute such access to the high priest's quarters to the apostle himself. Indeed, there is some evidence (chiefly related to the Lord's Supper account as well as the author's emphasis on Jerusalem) that John the apostle may well have been distantly related to the high priest.
(3) "John the elder" is a very popular view, based on a certain reading of Papias' famous quotation. But not only does Papias not speak of "John the elder" (rather he speaks of "the elder John"), he never says that such a person ever wrote the Fourth Gospel. The Papias fragment will be discussed more carefully in our introduction to the Apocalypse, but suffice it to say here that this postulate is by no means necessary—contradicting especially the external evidence—even if such a person ever existed.
In conclusion, although John's Gospel is, as one author put it, "a maverick gospel,"22 the traditional view of Johannine authorship is still the most reasonable hypothesis. The four strongest reasons, it seems, are (1) the strong external evidence, (2) the most plausible identification of the beloved disciple (coupled with the absence of John's name in this gospel), (3) the authoritative independence from the synoptic tradition, and (4) the amazing pre-70 topographical accuracy. Perhaps the reasons for fighting so hard against authenticity have to do with the theological import that must be wrestled with if this gospel is indeed a historically reliable document.
Most scholars date this gospel c. 90s-100.23 There is a growing number of scholars, however, who place it sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.24 Apart from J. A. T. Robinson's radical redating of John to the fifth decade of the first century25 (a view which, to my knowledge, almost no scholar has found palatable), the vast bulk of NT scholars can be put into two camps: 90s or 60s.
(1) Patristic writers normally date this gospel after the synoptics.
(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemy of Jesus suggests a late date—i.e., a time when the Jews had become the confirmed enemies of the church.
(3) Assuming that John used the synoptic gospels, and assuming that Luke and Matthew were written in the 80s, John must be dated no earlier than the 90s.
(4) The lack of reference to Jerusalem's destruction points to a date either before 66 or quite a bit after 70.
(5) The theology of John is highly advanced, especially its Christology. It is assumed that this cannot be true of a work written in the 60s.
(6) The affinities with 1 John, in which nascent gnosticism seems to be fought against, argues for a late first century date.
(7) John's ecclesiology (water baptism in John 3, the Lord's Supper in John 6) point to a late date.
(8) The reference in 9:22 to the formerly blind man getting booted out of the synagogue is a cryptic allusion to Jewish excommunication of Christians, which did not happen until the 80s.
Of these eight arguments, numbers 5, 6 and 8 are normally considered to be the weightiest. In any view, number 5 is quite strong, since this gospel not only has a high Christology, but also is far more reflective and penetrating on the salvific work of Christ than are the synoptic gospels.
Against these arguments, however, are the following considerations.
(1) Patristic citations on dating of NT books are notoriously faulty. They are far more reliable on issues of who than of when or why. Further, in our view, John still would be the last gospel penned, even though it would not have been written until c. 65.
(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemies of the church could easily be a pre-70 statement, especially if the audience lived outside of Palestine. Further, John almost always uses "the Jews" in reference to the Jewish leaders, not the populace in general.
(3) The assumption that John used the synoptic gospels is not at all proven. In fact, both P. Gardner-Smith and C. H. Dodd have argued (and cogently, I think) that John was completely independent of the synoptic gospels. In our view, the idea that the fourth evangelist used any of the synoptic gospels runs into insurmountable difficulties, for it not only has surface contradictions (e.g., the time of the cleansing of the temple, the nature of the Lord's Supper, etc.), but there is also much material which would have been beneficial to put in this gospel had the author had ready access to it.26 Nevertheless, even if John had employed the synoptics, in our view, this does not militate against a date before 65 CE. Unless one is prepared to argue that the Olivet Discourse must be a vaticinium ex eventu, there is no strong reason to date any of the synoptics after 70.
(6) The affinities with 1 John, and the anti-gnosticism and anti-docetism of that letter, are parallels which do not compel a late date. That is to say, we are quite uncertain about the origins of docetism/gnosticism. Surely there was incipient gnosticism taking root in the last third of the first century. Further, the anti-docetic theology of 1 John is no stronger than that of Colossians—a book which many scholars who hold to a late date for John would regard as authentic.
(7) John's ecclesiology is so subtle in chapters 3 and 6 that commentators are still not decided as to whether any ecclesiological implication can be made from these chapters. Further, even if we assume a sacramental interpretation on these chapters, what is to say that this could not go back to the historical Jesus? Although the church continued the practice of baptism and communion, they did not invent either one. Only if the criteria of authenticity (specifically, the criterion of dissimilarity with Jewish or Christian practices) could be legitimately used in a negative way could we say that John put dominical sayings on the lips of Jesus. But even here, there is no reason to posit a late first century date, for the sacraments are mentioned already in 1 Corinthians (late 50s)!
(8) Finally, the reference in 9:22 as an allusion to the third Sitz im Leben of the community, although repeated so often in commentaries as fact, is quite ambiguous. Only on the assumption that the blind man would certainly not have been kicked out of the synagogue, could one read the excommunication of the 80s into this verse.33 Analogously, in light of Jesus' treatment at Capernaum, and Paul's treatment in the synagogue of Thessalonika (to name but two examples), the verse reads as a simple piece of unembellished narrative.
There are a number of data which strongly suggest a date in the 60s, chief among them are the following.
(1) The destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This fits extremely well with a date before 66 CE.
(2) The topographical accuracy of pre-70 Palestine argues that at least some of the material embedded in the gospel comes from before the Jewish War.
(3) There is much primitive terminology used in this gospel. E.g., Jesus' followers are called "disciples" in John, not apostles.
(4) The conceptual and verbal parallels with Qumran argue strongly for an overtly Jewish document which fits well within the first century milieu.
(6) John's literary independence from and apparent lack of awareness of the synoptic gospels argue quite strongly for an early date. Indeed, this independence/ignorance argues that all the gospels were written within a relatively short period of time, with Matthew and Luke having the good fortune of seeing and using Mark in their composition.
(7) Finally, there is a strong piece of internal evidence for an early date. In John 5:2 the author says that "there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool (the one called Bethesda in Hebrew) which has five porticoes." Without discussing all the interpretations possible for this verse suffice it to say that (a) the verb "is" (ἐστιν) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE.35 By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE.
In sum, we believe that a pre-70 date for the Fourth Gospel is the most probable one. Further, we believe that this gospel should be dated late in 65 or even in 66, for the following two reasons: (a) it is doubtful that it should be dated after 66, because otherwise the lack of an Olivet Discourse in which many of the prophecies were at that time coming true, is inexplicable; (b) the gospel should perhaps be dated after Peter's death, as we shall see when we examine the purpose.
If Ephesus was the destination, two questions arise: (1) Was John in Ephesus when this gospel was published, or did he go there later? (2) What was the make-up of the recipients?
Regarding the purpose, the author states it in 20:31: "But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, by believing, you might have life in his name." The twofold ἵνα-clause neatly delineates the purpose: that the audience embrace Christ and that they receive life because of this. One question remains, however: the main verb, "believe" has a textual glitch. It is either πιστεύσητε (aorist) or πιστεύητε (present). If the former, it might be construed (though by no means necessarily) to mean "come to saving faith." If present, the idea probably would be "continue to believe." At issue is whether the audience is principally believers or non-believers, whether this gospel is principally evangelistic or confirmatory. Although my own text-critical preference is for the present tense,39 not much should be made of this either way. Further, even if this document is seen as principally evangelistic, by analogy, would this suggest that the Roman congregation which Paul addresses is also principally unbelievers, on the basis of his statement in 1:15 (as well as the content of the whole book)?! Thus, the purpose of the book is to confirm or strengthen Gentile believers in their faith.
In addition to this specific statement of the purpose, how John intended to go about it is a significant question. Clement of Alexandria represented an ancient tradition when he wrote that "Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been set forth in the Gospels, at the insistence of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."40 As we have suggested earlier, although the patristic writers can be relied upon largely for the who, they are filled with contradictory evidence when it comes to the why. This is a case in point. Clement is guessing—as were his predecessors—based on the radically different style and content of the fourth gospel. As we examine the occasion for this gospel, perhaps some of this will be cleared up.
As for the occasion, the catalyst for this gospel must be seen in chapter 21. The likelihood (though disputed by some) that this book already tidily ends with 20:31, only to be resumed again in chapter 21, should be a major signal: John had finished the work, but felt compelled to add a final chapter before publication. We believe that the gospel went through at least three stages of composition: primitive diary which John made while with Jesus;41 a virtually finished version which lacked the prologue (1:1-18) and the epilogue (ch. 21) as well as, perhaps, other incidental comments; and the final edition, in which chapter 21 was appended. This major seam indicates the urgency with which this gospel was manufactured in its present form. Chapter 21 is occupied with one principal concern: the death of Peter.
John's Gospel places an emphasis on the deity of Christ more explicitly than any other gospel. It begins with the evangelist's declaration (1:1) and concludes with doubting Thomas' expression of faith (20:28). Clearly this gospel presents Jesus as the Son of God. But it does more than that. It also expects a response from the audience—a response of belief (πιστεύω occurs 98 times; the noun, πίστις, not once). Further, John lacks certain key features found in the Synoptic Gospels—such as the journey to Jerusalem, Olivet Discourse, Sermon on the Mount, Transfiguration, parables, etc. Jesus' death is viewed as his glory and an eschatological judgment is suppressed. In sum, John presents Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, who is to be believed in order that one might right now pass from death to life.
In that over 90% of the material in John's Gospel is unique, not found in the other gospels, the question of sources and how John is using them becomes prominent. It is our contention that John's Gospel was written at about the same time as Matthew and Luke, for the evangelist shows virtually no awareness of the material found in the other gospels (typically common oral traditions being an exception). But if John did not get his material from these other sources, where did he get it from and why do they not employ it in their gospels? In particular, how is it possible that Luke, who spent two years in Palestine doing research for his Gospel, did not gain access to John's pre-publication draft?47 It seems either that John's circle was quite small—hence, the oral traditions generating from him made little impact on the mainstream of the gospel compilers; or else John drastically altered the shape of the material, packaging it for the hellenized audience of Asia Minor. We believe that the truth involves both of these possibilities.48 Our argument will accordingly be shaped by this consideration.
The Gospel of John has four major sections to it: prologue (1:1-18), the Son of God's manifestation to the nation (or, the "Book of Signs") (1:19–12:50), the Son of God's ministry to his disciples (13:1–17:26), and the Son of God's suffering and glory (18:1–20:31). An epilogue about the death of Peter is added almost as an afterthought (21:1-25). The two largest sections (public manifestation and private ministry) contrast sharply with one another in many ways, not the least of which is in chronological progression (three or four years vs. one night!).
The Gospel opens with a prologue (1:1-18) in which, like Mark, there is no genealogy and no birth narrative. But the reason for this in the Fourth Gospel is that the Son of God has always existed and, in fact, has created all things (1:1-5). His incarnation is mentioned from the divine perspective of why he came to earth (1:6-18; cf. especially vv. 9, 12-13, 17-18), rather than from the human perspective of those who first beheld a newborn babe and wondered what he would become. From the outset, then, John's Gospel presents Jesus as God's Son—in fact, as God in the flesh.
After this brief prologue, the largest section of the Gospel, the "Book of Signs," begins (1:19–12:50). In this section the Son of God performs seven "signs" (John never uses the term "miracle") as a witness to his authority and identity. In a real sense, this gospel is a legal document, designed especially to prove Christ's deity. There are witnesses, testimonies, evidence, and signs. At the end of John's presentation, he turns to the jury with the appeal to believe his evidence (20:30-31. We see this legal argumentation in this second major section especially.
The Book of Signs, though disclosing seven miracles, is best organized geographically. There are eight locales for the manifestation of the Son of God seen here. As Jesus enters a new locale, the twin themes of Gentile response and Jewish hostility to him increase.
Jesus' ministry begins in Perea and Galilee (1:19–2:11). There John gives his testimony as to Christ's identity (1:19-34): he is the elect one of God.49 John's testimony can be trusted because even his own disciples (at least one of them, Andrew, as well as his friends) follow Jesus (1:35-51). And in Cana of Galilee Jesus performs his first sign: changing the water into wine at a wedding (2:1-11). Although this was his first sign, only a handful of people (including his disciples) knew about it. He used the purification jars to perform the act. The significance of this was that there was a new order on the horizon, replacing the old. And whereas the old was related to the law (regulations about purification), the new order was related to the Spirit.
Then, Jesus went up from Galilee to Jerusalem for the Passover (2:12–3:36) and cleanses the temple (2:12-22). There he predicts another sign: he would raise up the temple (of his body) after the Jews destroyed it (2:19-21). While in Jerusalem, it became obvious that people were putting faith in him for the wrong reasons (2:23-25). The signs he was performing were not seen by the crowds as witnessing to Jesus' true identity, but as a means to an end for their sake: they embraced him as Healer, but not as Savior. One such example was Nicodemus (3:1-12), to whom Jesus makes a self-disclosure (3:13-21).
After the pseudo-reception in Jerusalem, Jesus traveled back to Galilee, going through Samaria en route (4:1-42). There we see the account of Jesus' conversation with and conversation of the woman at the well. In Samaria, Jesus performed no "sign," although he did prove himself to be a prophet. Yet, the citizens of Sychar embraced him as "the Savior of the world" (4:42). Several key motifs are seen in this episode, including Gentile (and a sinful woman's) response to the gospel, "thirst" in a spiritual sense (4:10-14), free access to God without the necessity of the Jewish cult (4:21-24), and the concept of "abiding" (4:40; cf. 15:1-8).
Jesus then returns to Galilee where a second sign is performed, the healing of a royal official's son (4:43-54). Yet the sign is performed within the context of the Galileans hearing about his feats in Jerusalem. Hence, there was misunderstanding on their part in that, once again, they only wanted Jesus as Healer (4:48), not as Savior.
In Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem for "a feast of the Jews" (5:1) he gets involved in a Sabbath controversy (5:1-47). It is caused by his healing of a lame man (his third sign) by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-15). Because he performs such an act on the Sabbath, the Jews plot to kill him (5:16-18), which elicits his taking the witness stand (5:31-47). In his defense, he basically argues that work of a redemptive nature is allowed on the Sabbath (5:17, 19-30) and that the Father testifies that Jesus has come for this very purpose (5:31-47).
Chapter six, once again, finds Jesus in Galilee for a third cycle (6:1-71). This time two signs are given: the feeding of the five thousand—a sign given to the public (6:1-15) and Jesus walking on the water—a sign given to Jesus' disciples (6:16-24). Both signs reveal much about who Jesus is, though the crowds simply wanted to get fed (6:25-27) without recognizing that Jesus was the "Bread of Life" (6:35) who satisfies all spiritual hunger (6:28-40). When he stated the very principle of the substitutionary atonement ("This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," 6:51; and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," 6:53) their animosity grew. Even several of his own disciples left him, not understanding his meaning (6:60-71).
The hostility toward Jesus met its climax when Jesus returned to Judea and Jerusalem for a third time (7:1–11:57)—this time for the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1-11). Although the material here could be organized internally on a geographical scheme, the repetition of the theme of Jewish unbelief after each round of demonstrations of Jesus' Messiahship, seems to reveal the evangelist's theology more clearly. There are three distinct cycles in this segment.
The first cycle addresses Jewish unbelief in spite of Jesus' teaching (7:1–8:59). Because the Jews were plotting to take Jesus' life, he went to the Feast of Tabernacles secretly (7:1, 11). Then, half-way through the feast, he began teaching publicly in the temple (7:14). The emphasis of his instruction was, again, on a defense that he was from God (7:15-36) and that he was, in fact, God's Son (8:12-59). He again used metaphors (living water in 7:37-44, light of the world in 8:12) to describe the offer of salvation. In spite of all this, the Jews refused to believe (7:45-52; 8:59).
The second cycle addresses Jewish unbelief in spite of Jesus' healing of a blind man (9:1–10:39). This again was a healing on the Sabbath (9:13-16), and for this very reason the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was sent from God (9:16). Further, when he declared that he was the "Good Shepherd" (using the metaphor of protection to indicate his role as Savior) (10:1-21)—and that "I and the Father are one" (10:30), they attempted to stone him on the spot (10:31-39).
The third cycle solidified their plot against Jesus' life. For in this last confrontation, Jesus raises a man from the dead (the seventh sign) (10:40–11:44), causing many Jews finally to believe in him (11:45). The Sanhedrin consequently planned to take his life, out of political and religious expediency (11:48). Unwittingly, the high priest gives the clearest statement of substitutionary atonement found in John's Gospel (11:50), which John capitalizes on (11:51).
Jesus' final manifestation to the nation came in his fourth visit to the holy city (12:1-50). He prepared for this manifestation by his anointing at Bethany by Mary (12:1-11). Then he entered Jerusalem, being proclaimed "King of Israel" in fulfillment of prophecy (12:13-16). As a twin foreshadowing of events to come, John depicts the Jews' rejection because of his last sign (the raising of Lazarus), and Gentile response apart from any miraculous catalyst (12:17-22). The Book of Signs then concludes with Jesus' own somber prediction of his death (12:23-36) followed by John's record of Isaiah's prediction (Isa. 6:10) of Jewish rejection (12:37-41) and cowardice (12:42-43).
The Gospel now makes a sudden turn inward. No longer is Jesus presenting himself to the nation year after year. The third major section of the Gospel shows him ministering to his disciples on the night before his death (13:1–17:26). This ministry is in light of the rejection by the nation and involves two aspects: instruction of the disciples (13:1–16:33) and praying for the disciples (17:1-26).
In his final instructions of the disciples Jesus used both object lessons and verbal instructions. In the upper room he washed their feet (13:1-17) as a demonstration of true greatness—and true love. His command to love one another (13:31-35) is wedged between two predictions, one of betrayal (13:18-30), one of denial (13:36-38). He then comforted his disciples with instructions about the Godhead's eschatological role in their lives (14:1-31a). It is here that John seems to place the Olivet Discourse (14:1-4). In his Gospel it is much abbreviated because he suppresses future judgment (thus all statements about Jerusalem's demise are evacuated), and especially in this section of the book emphasizes only Jesus' role to the disciples.
On the way to Gethsemane Jesus offers concluding remarks (14:31b–16:33). He speaks about the necessity of abiding in him as evidence of genuine life (15:1-17). The pericope of the vine and branches must be seen against the backdrop of Judas' betrayal, for Judas was one who did not abide (cf. also 1 John 2:19 where the author picks up this theme once again). Then he prepares his disciples for the hatred by the world (15:18–16:4), reminding them that the Holy Spirit would comfort them (16:5-16).
With words of present comfort (16:17-33), he goes to the garden and prays for his followers (17:1-26). In Gethsemane, with the prediction of the disciples' grief still on his mind, he focuses on his future glory with the Father (17:1-5) and protection and oneness of his disciples (17:6-19). His prayer concludes with a petition that the future converts of the disciples would also be united in love and mission (17:20-26).
After Jesus' high priestly prayer, the fourth major section of the Gospel begins (18:1–20:31). The true high priest would soon become the slain lamb. He is arrested, being betrayed by Judas (18:1-11), tried before Annas and Caiaphas (18:12-27) and then Pilate (18:28-40). After Peter denies him three times (18:25-27) Pilate pronounces Jesus innocent of all charges (18:28-40; cf. v. 38). But the crowd, reminding Pilate of his duty (19:12) and their alleged loyalty to Caesar (19:15), forced his hand.
Jesus was then brought to Golgotha and crucified there between two others (19:17-42). In John's account of the crucifixion, there is an emphasis on his completed work ("It is finished" in 19:30) as one who has now taken the place of the sinner, for he now is the one who is thirsty (19:28).50 There is also an emphasis on the fulfillment of the scripture which typologically pointed to Jesus as the Passover lamb (19:31-37, especially v. 36 [cf. Exod 12:46]). Thus the lamb of God, about whom John testified, truly came to take away the sin of the world.
John gives a detailed account of the resurrection of Christ (20:1-31). His narrative of the empty tomb includes Mary Magdalene's shock of seeing the stone rolled away, without mention of the announcement by an angel (20:1-2). She tells Peter what she saw and Peter and "the beloved disciple" actually enter the tomb (the only record of anyone doing so in the gospels [20:3-9]). The "beloved disciple" alone of all the disciples is said to believe without first seeing Jesus (20:9). He thus becomes an example for his audience to follow, an archetype for faith apart from a demand for signs (contra Thomas [20:29]). Then, after John and Peter depart, Jesus appears to Mary (20:10-17) who promptly reports this to the disciples (20:18). Further proof of Jesus' resurrection comes in his appearance to most of the disciples (20:19-23) and finally to Thomas (20:24-29), who exclaims "My Lord and my God!" (20:28), bringing the testimony of others to a close. An appeal is then made to the Gentile readers to confirm their faith in Christ (20:30-31), keeping in mind that even though they did not have the benefit of seeing Jesus in the flesh, they are more blessed than those who, like Thomas, believed because of seeing him (20:29).
In the epilogue to the Gospel (21:1-25), written after the Gospel had been completed but before publication, the whole focus is on Jesus' relation to Peter. When the Lord comes to the Sea of Tiberias (21:1), he found Peter and the other disciples fishing (21:2-5). After instructing them where to cast the net, which resulted in a miraculous catch of fish (21:6), John noticed that it was the Lord (21:7). Peter responded enthusiastically by swimming ashore to Jesus (21:8). John's account of this showed that Peter's denial of Jesus was neither permanent nor mentioned because of any animosity John might have toward Peter. In fact, Jesus reinstates Peter three times (21:15-17), for Peter had denied the Lord three times. This all sets the stage for the prediction which John wanted his audience to know about in greater detail than Peter had revealed (cf. 2 Peter 1:14-15). Jesus predicted Peter's death as a martyr, pointing out that it was entirely within God's sovereign plan, for it would ultimately glorify God (21:18-19). This was immediately followed by an ambiguous statement about John's longevity (21:20-23), no doubt mentioned by John to keep his audience from having false hopes about his continued ministry to them. The Gospel makes its (second) conclusion by recording the commendation of the Ephesian elders on John's testimony (21:24-25).
1I.e., which contain John either in its entirety or at least which have the first few verses, permitting them to reveal their inscription. It should be added here that P52, which is to be dated c. 100-150, only contains portions of five verses from John 18.
2The simplest inscription is κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην, found in א B ("according to John"). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην ([A] C D L W et al. ["The Gospel according to John"]), while still later it was called ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην (28 and others ["the Holy Gospel according to John"]). Curiously, the two earliest MSS (P66 and P75) have εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην, a fact which suggests that this gospel—even more than the synoptics—was already well accepted in the early part of the second century, for such accretions were usually associated with books which had a long-standing history of acceptance with the church. This further illustrates that even though these two papyri are our earliest (fairly) complete witnesses to John, the great codices of the fourth century may, at times, be more reliable guides to the wording of the original text.
3See preceding footnote for a case in point.
5For a survey of the dating of this MS, cf. D. B. Wallace, "John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel," Biblica 71 (1990) 177-78 (n. 6).
6Cf. C. H. Dodd, BJRL 20 (1936) 56-92.
7Cf. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:v-xxv.
8Cf. Robinson, 278 (n. 122) for a succinct yet helpful bibliography on John's accuracy about the topography of Palestine before 70 CE.
10There are other arguments which also address the issue of the date of this work and will be dealt with there.
11We could add a fourth argument, which in my mind is actually the largest stumbling block to Johannine authorship: the utter uniqueness of this gospel which neither impacted the synoptics nor was impacted by them, or even by most of the oral tradition found in them. This seems to suggest a secondary source for the Fourth Gospel, yet one that was unaware of the synoptics. But the problem with that is that such a secondary source would have to be late, yet the author's unawareness of the synoptics argues in the other direction. Both the arguments against Johannine authorship (and thus for a late date) and the possibility of Johannine independence of the synoptics (and thus for an early date) tend to cancel each other out.
12I am not here suggesting that the former means "unconditional love" while the latter means "friendly love," but that where there is a difference, ἀγαπάω tends toward a volitional love (= "commit to") while φιλέω tends toward an emotional or reciprocal love. This can be seen in the NT in general in that never is God or Christ said to have φιλία/φιλέω for an unbeliever, though ἀγάπη/ἀγαπάω is often used this way, even in John.
15That the synoptics would not deal with this first cleansing would be due to their geographical concerns: in their presentation, Jesus does not even come to Jerusalem until the week before his death. John, on the other hand, gives a fuller chronology, showing that Jesus repeatedly went up to Jerusalem for the feasts during his earthly ministry.
16Though, to be sure, there are traces of the latter in John: in particular, note that only in John's gospel does Jesus begin some of his aphorisms with a double "amen." This is unattested in any other literature (Jewish or Christian), though the synoptics do have the single "amen" prefixed to the front of some dominical sayings (which also is otherwise unattested). The criteria of authenticity would seem to demand that there is at least a hint of the real wording of the historical Jesus in these sayings. Incidentally, the Jesus Seminar (in which scholars have voted for what the real Jesus actually said) were quite confused on the point of "very words" vs. "very voice": when some member voted to reject all "red letters" from the Johannine Jesus' lips, they only meant that the words were not Jesus', but the thought went back to him, while other members denied both (learned through personal conversation with one of the members of the committee; the preface to the Five Gospels also indicates that there was something of a postmodern interpretation of the four colors rather than a set definition).
17Cf. especially H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 76-90; and I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper, 30-56.
18F. C. Grant, The Gospels, their Origin and Growth, 175.
19See our discussion of this probability under our introduction to James.
20For the role of amanuenses in the NT, see our introductory discussion of James.
21K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 292. Cf. also Wallace, "John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel," 196-97.
22 So Robert Kysar; see his book by that title.
23See Wallace, "John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel," 177-78, n. 6, for a survey of suggested dates (ranging from the 40s to 170!).
24For a list of names see Robinson, 307-308, n. 218 and Wallace, "John 5,2," 179, n. 10.
25See his The Priority of John, a book published posthumously.
26In particular, one should note that in John 1, Andrew reveals to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, while the synoptic witness is agreed that "flesh and blood have not revealed this" to Peter. John's emphasis on the role of the Spirit in his gospel would certainly be aided by this tradition—and the surface contradiction certainly serves no good purpose for John. On the other hand, the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 contrasts with the raising of a Lazarus in John 11: if the synoptic gospels were known to John would the author be so blatantly midrashic as to turn the suggestion of resurrection (in Luke) into a reality, just to prove that Jesus was right when he declared that even if Lazarus were raised form the dead, no one would believe?
27See Wallace, "John 5, 2" for a detailed discussion.
28Yet even here, one detects elements of primitivity: e.g., John refers to Jesus as "Messiah" (4:25), and even has the Pharisees ask John the Baptist, in rapid succession, whether he was the Christ or whether he was the prophet (1:19-21). The two would be kept distinct only from the Jews' perspective, not from the Christians'.
29In Paul, except for one reference in Philippians (3:20) and one in Ephesians (5:23), this is found only in the Pastorals (there, ten times).
30Bultmann was right when he argued that only about half dozen passages in the NT, all of them in the later writings, explicitly claim that Jesus is "God." In the Pauline corpus, Romans 9:5 might fit this (though there is a major punctuation problem), while Titus 2:13 certainly does. Outside of Paul, 2 Peter 1:1 and Heb 1:8 are the best references.
31Of course, these too have been questioned.
32Further, as D. A. Carson has ardently pointed out, it is a myth to suppose that the nascent church went down a completely linear doctrinal development line. Surely certain pockets of Christianity—then, as today—could have made insights and broken new ground in their understanding of Christ and salvation which were distinct from the insights of other pockets of Christianity existing at the same time.
33Recently, E. E. Ellis has come out very strongly for a reading of this verse in its historical context. Cf. his "Dating the New Testament," NTS 26 (1979-80) 488-502.
34Cf. Wallace, "John 5,2" 177-78.
35For an exhaustive treatment of this piece of evidence, cf. Wallace, "John 5,2" 177-205.
36Cf. Guthrie, 274-75 and F. F. Bruce, "St. John at Ephesus," BJRL 60 (1978) 339-61.
38 Though D. A. Carson seeks proof in his translation of John 20:31 that this gospel was written to Jews, viz., "that you may believe that the Christ is Jesus" (instead of "that Jesus is the Christ"). Cf. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 46-47, for a critique of this view on grammatical grounds.
39(1) Externally, the three earliest witnesses read this; (2) internally, (a) the participle in the second ἵνα-clause is present (πιστεύοντες), though it obviously has as its antecedent this verb (and since John shows almost a pedantic care for his verb tenses [cf., e.g., the antithetical parallel in 4:13-14], this strengthens the case for the present tense); and (b) a careful reading of this gospel reveals that πιστεύω in the aorist tense is often less than saving faith (cf. 2:23; 4:48), while πιστεύω in the present, or imperfect, or perfect tense almost always, if not always, involves saving faith (cf. 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 47; but cf. 20:29 [aorist] which immediately precedes this verse).
40Hypotyposes, cited in Eusebius, HE 6.14.7.
41A view more and more scholars are contending for. Cf. a decent bibliography in D. A. Carson, "Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?", in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels 2:113, 141-142.
42This reading of 2 Peter 1:15 makes such perfectly good sense to me that one might wonder why NT scholarship has not picked it up. Perhaps the reason is that only in recent years has an early date for John been found as a viable option—and further, only among the most conservative scholars (i.e., those who would hold to authenticity of 2 Peter) could this possibility even be seen. It must be stressed that this is not crucial to my understanding of the occasion of this gospel, for I have held to this view of the occasion for several years, but only recently "stumbled upon" this reading of 2 Peter 1:15.
43See especially Dodd's The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel for hellenistic parallels.
44See especially E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology.
45Most likely, the means by which John was able to be so steeped in Pauline thought was through an amanuensis who had some associations with Paul. This, too, is in keeping with patristic testimony, for there is a stream of tradition which suggests that John dictated this gospel, or employed the assistance of others in its composition.
46One of the possible objections to this scenario is the probability that Timothy was already in Ephesus as an apostolic delegate. However, not only would this be no hindrance to an apostle coming to take charge, but Timothy was no longer in Ephesus in 65 CE, as seems to be implied in Heb 13:23 (a book which I date c. 65-66), for Timothy is about to be released from his Roman imprisonment at this time.
47Actually, there are remarkable parallels between Luke and John, especially in the passion and resurrection narratives. But it is not sufficient to argue for direct literary dependence on the part of either author, though there is the strong possibility that Luke was privy to "snippets" of the Johannine material prior to publication. For the gospels as a whole, however, Mark has the closest parallels to John.
48It would be too much to say that John entirely rewrote his Gospel with his Gentile audience in mind, for there is much in the Gospel which seems to have come from a primitive diary. As well, there are many "uncorrected" Semitic-like phrases and expressions which certainly speak of historical authenticity, but would do nothing for the audience ultimately targeted for this work. On the other hand, it is quite possible that John's circle was small, even though he was an apostle. The emphasis in his Gospel, more than in any other gospel, is on the development of certain key characters. He draws out stories which are either skipped or severely truncated by others. He leaves out material which lacks "human interest." This may well indicate how John normally conducted his ministry, viz., in small groups (cf. two of his epistles—to individuals). If so, then the Johannine circle would necessarily be small by design and would not in any way reflect on the apostle's popularity or effectiveness.
Within John's Gospel, the evangelist focuses on human interest and deep character development of just a few individuals.
"The disciple whom Jesus loved" illustrates a one-on-one mentoring relationship that may have served as a model for the rest of his life.
At least two out of three of John's letters are written either to individuals or to very small congregations. This percentage is unparalleled in relation to the rest of the NT letters, or even of early patristic letters.
That 2 John and 3 John took some time to gain acceptance into the canon suggests that the scope of John's ministry was not normally very wide. Although the argument that they were not initially accepted because of their size is very popular, parallels with Philemon show that this in itself is an insufficient base. Parallels with Jude would be better, except for the fact that Jude was not nearly as prominent as either John or Paul in nascent Christianity. What best accounts for John's letters as not being quickly accepted is that the author is both the apostle himself and the apostle John did not often have a wide scope to his ministry.
John apparently never speaks on his own in either the gospels or in Acts; he is always accompanied by Peter or James.
The early church records may hint at John's mentoring skills in that a linear descent is traced from John through Polycarp to Irenaeus. It is interesting that this record is so particularized—and equally that it is relatively unparalleled for the rest of the apostles.
49We adopt the textual variant at 1:34 as original.
51Although one of the two major sections of this gospel ("the book of signs"—1:19–12:50) involves seven miracles, it is doubtful that John intended to outline his book around them (since there are two groups of two which are virtually juxtaposed: 4:46-54 with 5:1-18; and 6:5-14 with 6:16-21). There are three other, equally good groupings possible: (1) theologically: around the seven "I AM" sayings (yet two of these occur in the upper room discourse [14:6; 15:1]); (2) chronologically: each year of ministry, as seen in the references to the Passover (2:13; 5:1?; 6:4; 11:55); the problem with this is the oblique reference in 5:1 (if this really is a flag, why is the evangelist not more explicit?); and (3) geographically. In our approach, as with Mark and Luke, a geographical outline yields the most satisfactory results, though once again there are a number of problems with this approach. One of the problems with outlining ancient documents is our modern and western way of viewing things—especially in our deductive layout. Another problem is that themes and motifs are repeated throughout so that there are several concentric circles of ideas overlapping with one another throughout a book, giving a tremendous literary impression coupled with an amorphous organization. A third problem is that the author is both using sources and is tied to history which governs, to a large extent, how he shapes his material. All of these factors contribute to difficulty in outlining.
52It is possible to organize this section completely on a geographical basis, but the repetition of the theme of Jewish unbelief, after each round of demonstrations of Jesus' Messiahship, seems to reveal the evangelist's theological aims more clearly.
53The next pericope, 7:53–8:11 is not original to the gospel of John and seriously disrupts the flow of argument (cf. D. B. Wallace, "Reconsidering 'The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered,'" New Testament Studies 39  290-96, for internal arguments on the inappropriateness of this pericope here).


text:
Moore Institute on Twitter
Moore Institute on YouTube
Moore Institute on SoundCloud
Moore Institute
Applications invited for PhD Scholarship in Digital Arts & Humanities @ Moore Institute
PhD Scholarship in Digital Arts & Humanities
NUI Galway invites applications for a four-year structured PhD scholarship in Digital Arts & Humanities to commence in September 2019.
The closing date for applications is 5pm, Monday, July 8, 2019 Applications are made via the Postgraduate Application System (CRM Recruit) :
The Structured PhD in Digital Arts & Humanities at NUI Galway is a full-time four-year doctoral programme from which twelve students have graduated since its inception in 2011. Our ambition is for students to contribute to the developing digital arts and humanities community world-wide. The programme provides fourth-level researchers with the platform, structures, partnerships, and innovation models to engage and collaborate with a wide range of academics and practitioners. We welcome proposals on the use of digital tools and methodologies in the scholarly analysis of cultural texts and phenomena, and on practice-based research in digital art and media. Students will gain exposure to transferable skills in digital content creation and analysis that are academically and professionally beneficial.
Candidates enter the programme via the Humanities or the Arts strands (in the relevant discipline within the College of Arts). See below for a description of these two strands. Both strands
introduce students to the history of and theoretical issues in digital arts and humanities via a range of elective modules;
provide the skills needed to apply advanced computational and information management paradigms to arts and/or humanities research;
create a framework for students to develop generic and transferable skills to complete the required work for the award of the PhD. Work placements at pertinent institutions may also form part of the scholarship.
Scholarships are valued at €16,000 plus fees per annum. Entrants should possess a first-class or upper second-class honours primary degree within a relevant discipline and (preferably) a Master's degree in a relevant discipline.
Digital Humanities proposals should include a strong and clearly defined digital component, either as a core method of research and dissemination, or as a subject of research in itself. Proposals may address any topic within Digital Humanities, including (but not limited to): archives & preservation; authorship attribution; classical studies; corpus analysis; crowdsourcing; digital scholarly editing; historical studies; interdisciplinary collaboration; internet history; literary studies; ontologies; stylistics and stylometry; text-mining; textual studies; visualisation.
Digital Arts proposals may examine questions such as artistic practice informed by digital media; the intersection between artistic creativity and technological innovation; or the impact of the digital on the form, structure, and function of narrative. Proposals for practice-based doctorates are welcome as well as traditional academic formats.
Previous Digital Arts & Humanities PhD students have also worked closely with researchers at the Data Science Institute at NUI Galway (https://datascienceinstitute.ie/) and co-supervision may be sought from this research centre.
Prospective applicants are strongly advised to identify and correspond with potential supervisors for their research proposal before submitting a scholarship application: http://www.nuigalway.ie/findasupervisor/
Application should be made online at the Postgraduate Application System (CRM Recruit) – Course code: GYG38. One sample of academic writing (e.g. a recent BA or MA course essay) and a 1500-word research proposal should also be submitted through PAC. The proposal must be structured under the following headings:
Description of proposed research (800 words): This section should clearly describe the subject and scope of your research, and the proposed outcomes in terms of the creation of new resources, tools, knowledge transfer, etc. You should indicate the critical problems or research questions you propose to address in the thesis component of your PhD, as well as any digital outputs that may arise from your work.
Context (350 words): This section should describe, to the best of your ability and as far as you are aware, the extent of the existing academic and digital work in your area of interest. You should be able to explain how your research will challenge or extend this existing topic.
Methodology (250 words): Here you should describe the specific methodologies and technologies you expect to employ.
Sources and Archives (100 words): Give a preliminary indication of the primary and secondary material you expect to work with.
Evidence of previous achievements in digital media or art practice (for practice-based PhD applicants only).
For further information please contact Professor Daniel Carey, Moore Institute or Dr Justin Tonra, Discipline of English (daniel.carey@nuigalway.ie | justin.tonra@nuigalway.ie).
Closing Date for Applications is 5pm, Monday, July 8, 2019.
Applications Invited for a European Capital of Culture 2020 Doctoral Scholarship @ the Moore Institute
Welcoming Visiting Fellows-Week of 17th June 2019- Kanchana Mahadevan and Ivan Flis
Moore Institute seeks applications for a Postdoctoral Researcher in Creative Cities (Galway European Capital of Culture)
Welcoming Visiting Fellow-06th June 2019- Caroline Magennis
Updates from the Moore Institute
Subscribe to get emails with details of news and upcoming events.
Each email will have an option to unsubscribe
The Moore Institute stands at the forefront of NUI Galway's commitment to world-leading inquiry in humanities, culture, and society. Founded in 2000, and named after the distinguished Moore family of Moore Hall, Co. Mayo, the Institute has earned major national and international grants and led projects across the disciplines in areas from archaeology to ancient history and medieval studies, and from the early modern period to the present day, including politics, gender, and performance.
Moore Institute for Research in the Humanities and Social Studies,
Hardiman Research Building,
National University of Ireland, Galway,
University Road,
Phone: +353 (0)91 493906
Fax: +353 (0)91 495507
mooreinstitute@nuigalway.ie
© 2019, National University of Ireland, Galway. All Rights Reserved.
Contact & Enquiries


text:
Cruise News MSC Cruises Construction Begins On MSC Cruises New Generation Cruise Ship
Construction Begins On MSC Cruises New Generation Cruise Ship
On June 22nd the construction phase began on MSC Cruises new generation cruise ship called the MSC Seaside.
The first steel was cut at the Fincantieri shipyard in Monfalcone, italy and it begins the construction phase on the cruise line's new generation class. There was a ceremony to mark the historic event which was attended by cruise line and shipyard executives.
MSC Cruises' Executive Chairman Pierfrancesco Vago said: "Today, we have witnessed the beginning of the work on an extraordinary new ship, MSC Seaside. It is a ship that revolutionizes industry standards, with an audacious and innovative design that brings guests and sea closer. It is also a testament to MSC Cruises' constant focus on innovation, as it is the fifth prototype ship we've designed."
Privately owned MSC Cruises has become one of the world's fastest growing cruise lines with a seven-ship investment plan that will double capacity by 2022.
MSC Seaside will be based year-round in Miami and will sail a wide range of highly appealing Caribbean itineraries. In addition, MSC Cruises' Miami-based cruise operations – which also includes the stunning MSC Divina, which will sail year-round from Miami starting November 2015 – will benefit from a newly renovated and expanded dedicated berth and terminal at PortMiami, signifying the company's strong ambitions in the North American market and commitment to providing guests with best-in-class service.
With a gross tonnage of 154,000 tons and the ability to accommodate up to 4,140 guests at double capacity, this new cruise ship will be the largest ever built by Fincantieri. The ship is set to arrive in Miami in December 2017, where she will also be christened, marking the first time an MSC Cruises' ship is christened in the US. Sales for cruises on MSC Seaside will start approximately two years ahead of its inaugural season, to reflect the high demand for this unique product.
MSC Seaside is the first of two identical ships on order from Fincantieri, the second of which will enter in to service in 2018. In addition, MSC Cruises has an option for an additional Seaside generation ship to be delivered by 2021. You can also watch a short video showing some renderings of the cruise line's upcoming ships.
First Seaside EVO Class Ship Bookings Open
Bookings have now opened for the very first EVO class cruise ship named MSC Seashore which will join the fleet in 2021.
Mega Cruise Ship Just Months Away from U.S. Arrival
One of the largest cruise ships in the world operated by MSC Cruises is just months away from arriving in the United States for the very first time.
Another Cruise Canceled After Ship Crashed in Venice
Emrys Thakkar - Jun 6, 2019
MSC Opera which crashed into a smaller river vessel and a dock in Venice, Italy last week still remains in port due to an investigation.


VISEO hosted the first EAUG in France on Thursday, September 17th 2015.
This first edition introduced talks and presentations in French on a wide array of topics including Enterprise Architecture (TOGAF, ArchiMate), modelling IT and software applications, generating and validating documentation from the models, and Systems Engineering (MBSE, SysML).
Enterprise Architect add ins were shown in a dedicated area, where users and experts shared their opinions and experiences on notations, languages, methodologies around a coffee, tea or other refreshment.


https://www.reliable-store.com/products/1997-suzuki-rf600-workshop-repair-service-manual-pdf-download 3145292099 1997 Suzuki Rf600 Workshop Repair Service Manual PDF Download //cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0571/9741/products/Suzuki_Logo_grande_3af392be-1a99-4b22-99d7-9ee6dc72bc55_large.jpg?v=1521286916 9.95 USD InStock Wacker Nouson We understand how valuable a bike is to its owner, the memories it makes, the attachment it invokes in a person. Every biker would want their bike to be in its tip-top condition. Keeping that in mind, we deliver a full-coverage, ultra-vast and yet a simplistic service manual for your Suzuki Rf600 This manual will help you get through absolutely any sort of trouble that might come up with regard to Repair, Service & Maintenance of your Suzuki Rf600. Intricately laid out and highly detailed index gives you a clear picture of the contents of this service manual.


In this episode, I sit down with the amazing Tessa Netting (Billy Elliot, Bunk'd, Voice Over Actress, Maker of Incredible Parodies and YouTuber extraordinaire) and talk about her journey as an artist from Broadway to YouTube sensation, fantasy, fandom, audience ownership of the stories they love, and the power and joy of creating your own world to escape reality.
Bonus Ep. - Live from BroadwayCon!


What is the basic anatomy of the hand?
Carpals: eight bones in the wrist.
Metacarpals: five bones that form the palm of the hand.
Phalanges: 14 small bones that form the thumb and fingers.
Knuckles (metacarpal-phalangeal joint): The fingers, composed of phalanges, join the palm, made of metacarpals.
Joints in the fingers are called the PIP and DIP joints. The PIP joint is the proximal interphalangeal joint and is the joint closest to the palm. The DIP joint is the distal interphalangeal joint and is the joint closest to the fingertip.
What is involved in a physical examination of the hand?
Most injuries of the hand will require an X-ray. Knowing how the hand was injured will help the doctor determine the problem. The doctor will touch your fingers, hand and wrist to determine the areas that are most painful and to evaluate any damage that may have occurred to the blood vessels, nerves or tendons in the hand.
At one time or another, just about everyone suffers from hand, finger or wrist pain. Symptoms result from everyday wear and tear, overuse, or injury.
Arthritis is a disease of the cartilage in joints. It can occur as a result of acute or chronic inflammation of a joint and its surrounding soft tissues, following trauma to the joint. Arthritis can also result from genetic or environmental causes.
Arthritis is frequently, but not always, painful and may result in limitation of motion, joint deformity, and loss of function.
Degenerative arthritis or osteoarthritis: may affect one or more joints anywhere in the body. It usually occurs later in life and affects the hands and large, weight-bearing joints. Degenerative arthritis can cause pain, deformity and limitation of motion.
Rheumatoid arthritis: an inflammatory disease that can affect the entire body, especially the joints. It affects the synovium, the tissue which lines and nourishes joints and tendons throughout the body. The synovium proliferates, causing local destruction of bones, joints, and soft tissues. Rheumatoid arthritis usually begins in the hands and feet and often spreads eventually involving multiple joints.
A number of factors contribute to the development of osteoarthritis. Mechanical considerations (e.g., joint stability and alignment) affect the distribution of forces across the joint and impact its joint longevity.
What are some of the risk factors for osteoarthritis?
Risk factors include traumatic injuries, joint infections, and heavy use. Some people inherit the tendency to develop degenerative arthritis, though this genetic predisposition is not well understood. Typically, these individuals are affected at an earlier age.
Although doctors aren't sure of the exact cause of rheumatoid arthritis, it's thought that it may result from a combination of genetics and environmental triggers. Some researchers believe a bacterial or viral infection can trigger the development of rheumatoid arthritis in someone who's genetically susceptible.
Dupuytren's disease, also known as "Viking's disease," changes the appearance of the hand and may make it difficult or impossible to use one or more fingers. It is an abnormal thickening of the tissue just beneath the skin in the palm and can extend into the fingers. Dupuytren's disease occurs most often in people ages 50 and older. It often affects both hands and can sometimes affect the soles of the feet.
Dupuytren's disease gradually gets worse but rarely causes pain. Symptoms usually include lumps and pits within the palm. The lumps are generally firm and adherent to the skin. Thick cords may develop, extending from the palm into one or more fingers, with the ring and little fingers most commonly affected.
The cause of Dupuytren's disease is unknown, but it may be associated with certain biochemical factors within the involved connective tissue.
Dupuytren's disease is treatable but there is no cure. Sometimes, the disease may only affect the palm and not the fingers.
Collagenase injections, which weaken the Dupuytren tissue, and make it possible to manipulate the finger to make it straighter.
Needle aponeurotomy, which involves placing a needle beneath the skin to cut the Dupuytren's tissue.
Both collagenase injections and needle aponeurotomy are office procedures. Your hand surgeon can describe these options in more detail, including potential risks and benefits, to help you decide what treatment method is best for you.
What is de Quevain's disease?
De Quervain's disease is a painful inflammation of the tendons in the thumb that extend to the wrist. The swollen tendons and their coverings rub against the narrow tunnel through which they pass.
What causes de Quervain's disease?
Who is most likely to gets de Quervain's disease?
While anyone can get de Quervain's, it affects women eight to ten times more often than men.
What are the symptoms of de Quervain's disease?
A: De Quervain's disease commonly causes pain at the base of the thumb and extending into the lower arm. Thumb motion may be difficult and painful, particularly when pinching or grasping objects. Some people also experience swelling and pain on the side of the wrist at the base of the thumb. The pain may increase with thumb and wrist motion. Some people feel pain if direct pressure is applied to the area.
Doctors most frequently perform the "Finkelstein" test to diagnose de Quervain's disease. This test requires the patient to make a fist with their thumb placed in their palm. When the wrist is bent toward the outside, the swollen tendons are pulled through the tight space and stretched. If that movement is painful, it may be an indication of de Quervain's disease.
How is de Quervain's disease treated?
Treatment of de Quervain's usually involves wearing a splint 24 hours a day for four to six weeks to immobilize the affected area. It's also recommended that patients refrain from any activities that aggravate the condition. Ice may be applied to reduce inflammation. If symptoms continue, your doctor may give you anti-inflammatory medication such as naproxen sodium or ibuprofen, or may inject the area with steroids to decrease pain and swelling. If de Quervain's disease does not respond to conservative medical treatment, surgery may be recommended.
What is trigger finger or trigger thumb?
Trigger finger or trigger thumb occurs when the flexor tendon and the tissue that covers it become inflamed and swollen. Both are painful conditions that cause the fingers or thumb to catch or lock in a bent position.
One of the first symptoms may be soreness at the base of the finger or thumb. The most common symptom is a painful clicking or snapping when attempting to flex or extend the affected finger. This catching sensation tends to worsen after periods of inactivity and loosen up with movement.
In some cases, the finger or thumb that is affected locks in a flexed position or in an extended position as the condition becomes more severe, and must be gently straightened with the other hand. Joint contraction or stiffening may eventually occur.
The problems often stem from inflammation of tendons that are located within a protective covering (the tendon sheath). Trigger finger may be caused by highly repetitive or forceful use of the finger and thumb. Medical conditions that cause changes in tissues, such as rheumatoid arthritis, gout, or diabetes, may be a culprit. Prolonged, strenuous grasping, such as with power tools, may aggravate the condition.
Farmers, industrial workers, and musicians are frequently affected by trigger finger since they rely on their fingers or thumbs for multiple repetitive movements. Trigger finger is more common in women than in men and tends to occur most frequently in people who are between 40 and 60 years old.
Trigger finger can't be diagnosed using X-rays or lab tests. It is generally diagnosed following a physical examination of the hand and fingers.
The first step to recovery is to limit activities that aggravate trigger finger. Occasionally, your doctor may put a splint on the affected hand to restrict the joint movement. If symptoms continue, anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium, may be prescribed. Your doctor may also recommend an injection of a steroid medication into the tendon sheath. If the condition does not respond to conservative measures or consistently recurs, surgery may be recommended.
The time it takes to recover from trigger finger depends on the severity of the condition. The choice of treatment also impacts recovery time. For example, splinting may be necessary for six weeks. However, most patients with trigger finger recover within a few weeks by resting and limiting the use of the affected finger and/or using anti-inflammatory medications.
What is a scaphoid fracture of the wrist?
A scaphoid fracture is a break in a small bone on the thumb side of your wrist. Of the eight carpal bones in your wrist, your scaphoid bone is the most likely one to break.
Most scaphoid fractures occur when you stretch your hand out in front of you to protect yourself from a fall. They can also occur when your wrist twists severely or is hit very hard. Scaphoid fractures often happen while playing sports such as football, soccer, or basketball or during activities such as rollerblading, skateboarding, or bike riding.
Your doctor will ask you questions about your symptoms and about how and when you hurt your wrist. He or she will examine your wrist for any swollen or tender areas, and check the mobility of your wrist and thumb. Your doctor will also try to find out how well blood is flowing to your hand and if you have any nerve damage in your wrist.
Most likely, your doctor will order X-rays of your wrist. Sometimes an X-ray clearly shows a scaphoid fracture. Other times, an X-ray may not show signs of a fracture. If your doctor is not sure if your wrist is broken, he or she may refer you to an orthopedist, a doctor who specializes in bone problems. Because evidence of fractures may not be seen right away, you may need a follow-up X-ray in one to two weeks. In the meantime, to prevent possible long-term problems, you will be treated as if you do have a fracture.
It is important to find out if you have a scaphoid fracture, because scaphoid fractures need treatment to heal properly. With appropriate treatment and follow-up, most scaphoid fractures heal over time. Without treatment healing can be slow and difficult because parts of the scaphoid bone do not have a good blood supply. If your scaphoid bone does not heal well, you may develop long-term pain, stiffness, or arthritis in your wrist.