Who wrote what?

[JohannineScholar]

Mainstream Protestant view: ...

I think that you think these quotes contradict what I said. That isn't the case.

 

[mark kennedy]

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)

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.

 

[JohannineScholar]

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.

That is the motivation of some, but you falsely impute this motive to all.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is the motivation of some, but you falsely impute this motive to all.

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.

 

[JohannineScholar]

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.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[JohannineScholar]

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.

The issue of whether the author was an eyewitness and apostolic person is being addressed. Perhaps you just aren't aware of it.

 

[Randy777]

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.

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?

 

[JackRT]

It is generally agreed that Luke also wrote Acts. It is most unlikely that John the Apostle wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.

 

[JohannineScholar]

It is generally agreed that Luke also wrote Acts. It is most unlikely that John the Apostle wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.

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.

 

[Doug Melven]

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.

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?

 

[Radagast]

It is generally agreed that Luke also wrote Acts.

Agreed.

It is most unlikely that John the Apostle wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.

Every piece of evidence indicates that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel bearing his name (probably excluding the last chapter).

 

[JohannineScholar]

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. 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.

 

[Radagast]

The apostle is never mentioned in the gospel of John.

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).

The Apostle John was martyred

No, he wasn't.

 

[JohannineScholar]

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 Beloved Disciple is an anonymous figure throughout the account, including after John 21:2. Why return to speaking of him as the anonymous 'disciple' if he had been named already? If he remains 'the disciple,' it can only mean that he had not been explicitly named in the account by name, other than as 'the disciple'. As such, he can't be one of the Zebedee brothers.

Some will dismiss the evidence that John the Apostle was martyred, assuming that he is the same John who lived to old age in Ephesus, and will explain away Jesus's prophecy and Papias's testimony. Jesus's prophecy is perfectly clear: John would drink the cup that the Lord drank: death at the hands of ungodly men. He would be baptized with the baptism of death, and baptism signifies death. We know that James was martyred.

There is a lot of reactionary posting on here. People for some reason feel threatened by the thought that the Apostle John didn't write the Gospel, and so they dismiss Jesus' prophecy and Papias' witness. There were two Johns among Jesus's disciples, as Papias tells us, and I see no reason for rejecting the possibility that the second John, called 'the Elder' (cf. 2 John 1), wrote the Gospel of John.

 

[Radagast]

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?

Previously, you saw John "not being mentioned" as evidence for non-Johannine authorship.

I corrected your rather elementary error. Now you see John being mentioned as evidence for non-Johannine authorship.

I'm beginning to think interacting with you is pointless.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Rather than deal with the points I have made, here the poster has exploited the ambiguity of whether the apostle is named or not to insinuate that my reasoning is flawed.

According to this poster I was responding to, the Gospel claims that the apostle John is the author. I stated in response that John the Apostle isn't even mentioned. This poster points out (correctly) that "the sons of Zebedee" are mentioned, but how does that answer his original claim that the Gospel says that John specifically wrote it, if he isn't even singled out! That was my entire point, which he has not addressed. By his own admission, it only speaks of the "sons" of Zebedee, yet the claim I was responding to was that it says John wrote it!

Instead of explaining that I was interacting specifically with the claim that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel (which it never says), I just rolled with it and pointed out that even the mention of the Zebedee brothers is evidence that John the Apostle couldn't have written it. In response, he accuses me of changing my answers and says that discussing with me might be a pointless waste of time. This is unreasonable behavior. I can't win. Someone claims that it says "the apostle John wrote it" and I point out that that is impossible because "the apostle John" isn't mentioned. Now I'm accused of shoddy work because the "sons of Zebedee" are mentioned. It seems you can't win with some people, like Radagast.

 

[Doug Melven]

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.
Like some kind of inner circle, these 3 saw the Transfiguration.
To me that speaks of John's authorship.
I am not offended by somebody choosing another author.
But I don't think it should be done on such slight evidence as an unnamed "other disciple" was known to the high priest.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Yes, Peter, James and John, in that order of importance. Yet the disciple whom Jesus loved is in the preeminent place, not in third place behind Peter and James.
It's not based on the high priest. I've already stated that that is one of many pieces of evidence. But it is significant, and can't be brushed aside as unimportant. It points to another John, even if it doesn't "prove" it beyond reasonable doubt. It is suggestive, not conclusive, as are the dozens of other pieces of evidence. But it sounds to me that your mind is made up already, and as you say, at the end of the day it isn't majorly important either way. Shalom.

 

[Radagast]

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.

Which means, if someone doesn't believe that John is the Beloved Disciple, they have to explain why John (a member of the "inner circle") was "edited out" of the story in the Gospel of John (except for John 21:2).

But I don't think it should be done on such slight evidence as an unnamed "other disciple" was known to the high priest.

Based on the named women at the foot of the Cross, many people believe that John's mother was Mary's sister. That would mean that both Jesus and John were related to the priestly families (Luke 1:5, Luke 1:36), albeit as distant "country cousins."