JohannineScholar
Active Member
I think that you think these quotes contradict what I said. That isn't the case.Mainstream Protestant view: ...
Upvote
0
I think that you think these quotes contradict what I said. That isn't the case.Mainstream Protestant view: ...
Nice quotes, I think there is a bigger issue of Apostolic authority which is the whole reason to convince people the Apostle John didn't write it.Mainstream Protestant view: We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered “by human will,” but that “men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God...” (Belgic Confession)
Catholic view: God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." ... The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (Catholic Catechism 105-107)
That is the motivation of some, but you falsely impute this motive to all.Nice quotes, I think there is a bigger issue of Apostolic authority which is the whole reason to convince people the Apostle John didn't write it.
It's too consistent to be otherwise in my estimation. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding how we got the New Testament in the first place, Apostolic authority was and is foundational. Dismissing, without a hearing, the existential primacy of Apostolic authority is a flawed approach. Not addressing this issue simply compounds the problem. This isn't about motive, it goes to method and it's characterized by it's indifference to Apostolic authority and why that is the primacy of New Testament canon.That is the motivation of some, but you falsely impute this motive to all.
Except that it isn't dismissed by all who reject Zebedean authorship. You seem to assume that if someone rejects that John the son of Zebedee wrote it, they also reject the view that it was written by an apostolic person, an eyewitness. This is not the case, and suggests to me that you aren't very well-read in this subject area.It's too consistent to be otherwise in my estimation. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding how we got the New Testament in the first place, Apostolic authority was and is foundational. Dismissing, without a hearing, the existential primacy of Apostolic authority is a flawed approach. Not addressing this issue simply compounds the problem. This isn't about motive, it goes to method and it's characterized by it's indifference to Apostolic authority and why that is the primacy of New Testament canon.
I've read enough, of the arguments and the source material to come to a substantive conclusion. The issue of Apostolic authority isn't being addressed and the arguments that the Apostle John didn't write books and epistles, attributed to him by tradition and the best Christian scholarship of the last 2000 years, is flimsy and anecdotal at best.Except that it isn't dismissed by all who reject Zebedean authorship. You seem to assume that if someone rejects that John the son of Zebedee wrote it, they also reject the view that it was written by an apostolic person, an eyewitness. This is not the case, and suggests to me that you aren't very well-read in this subject area.
The issue of whether the author was an eyewitness and apostolic person is being addressed. Perhaps you just aren't aware of it.I've read enough, of the arguments and the source material to come to a substantive conclusion. The issue of Apostolic authority isn't being addressed and the arguments that the Apostle John didn't write books and epistles, attributed to him by tradition and the best Christian scholarship of the last 2000 years, is flimsy and anecdotal at best.
So who wrote the gospel according to John? Why do you state Luke wrote hebrews as I thought there was no firm agreement who that author was?It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
It isn't 'generally agreed' at all! It's generally agreed that we don't know! Luke is a good option though, I would agree as far as that.It is generally agreed that Luke also wrote Acts. It is most unlikely that John the Apostle wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.
At the end of the Gospel of John, the Apostle John claims to have written the Gospel that bears his name.It isn't 'generally agreed' at all! It's generally agreed that we don't know! Luke is a good option though, I would agree as far as that.
I agree, however, that John the Apostle didn't write the Gospel and Revelation.
It is generally agreed that Luke also wrote Acts.
It is most unlikely that John the Apostle wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.
The apostle is never mentioned in the gospel of John. There is a discussion as to which John wrote it, or even whether a person named John wrote it. I don't think I could introduce you to the main issues of the debate in a quick post, but I could point out one or two things for now. 1) The Apostle John was martyred (see Mark 10:38; Papias); the Evangelist who wrote the Gospel died in old age (see the epilogue to John's Gospel). 2) The author was known to the High Priest (John 18:15); the Apostle John was not previously known the to the priestly circle (see Acts 4). I leave it there. If you wish to explain those away and maintain that the Apostle wrote it, I won't try to argue it any further. The distinction between the Apostle John and the Beloved Disciple is very clear on any impartial reading of those verses.At the end of the Gospel of John, the Apostle John claims to have written the Gospel that bears his name.
What evidence is there that says different?
The apostle is never mentioned in the gospel of John.
The Apostle John was martyred
Explicitly, yes he is. Once (John 21:2).
The scarcity of explicit mentions is often taken as one piece of authorship evidence. Implicitly, it's completely obvious that John is the "beloved disciple" (the other gospels tell us that John was one of the key apostles, so it's inconceivable that he would not be mentioned at all).
No, he wasn't.
The anonymity of the Beloved Disciple is maintained throughout the account, including after John 21:2. Why return to maintaining his anonymity if he had been named already?
In the Synoptic Gospels John is mentioned frequently.
By name he is not mentioned at all in the fourth Gospel.
But in the other 3 he is mentioned as one of the close 3. Peter, James and John.
But I don't think it should be done on such slight evidence as an unnamed "other disciple" was known to the high priest.