Who wrote John's Gospel

[timtams]

edit

 

[JackRT]

I do not know the author but I am reasonably sure that it is not John the Apostle or John of Patmos.

 

[Daniel C]

I do not know the author but I am reasonably sure that it is not John the Apostle or John of Patmos.

Why not John the Apostle?

 

[Jonaitis]

"This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

John, son of Zebedee, is clearly the author.

"Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true" (3 John 1:12).

^He shares the same style and language with the three epistles of John.

If we need more weight (when we have enough where Scripture speaks), you have those that lived near his time who said that he was the author.

 

[timtams]

"This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

John, son of Zebedee, is clearly the author.

"Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true" (3 John 1:12).

^He shares the same style and language with the three epistles of John.

If we need more weight (when we have enough where Scripture speaks), you have those that lived near his time who said that he was the author.

That just shows that the same author wrote all four books. Nothing in the letters says it was written by John the son of Zebedee.

 

[timtams]

If we need more weight (when we have enough where Scripture speaks), you have those that lived near his time who said that he was the author.

Even that has been brought into question by Bauckham. Early writers speak of a John who wrote the Gospel; some call him an apostle (a title not limited to the twelve) but none call him the son of Zebedee. Polycrates says that this John was a priest who wore the sacerdotal plate, which sounds like a different one.

 

[Daniel C]

Even that has been brought into question by Bauckham. Early writers speak of a John who wrote the Gospel; some call him an apostle (a title not limited to the twelve) but none call him the son of Zebedee. Polycrates says that this John was a priest who wore the sacerdotal plate, which sounds like a different one.

What makes you think Polycrates is correct?



As for the scholar,they all think up new bombastic theories to sell their books and boost their public profile.

 

[timtams]

What makes you think Polycrates is correct?



As for the scholar,they all think up new bombastic theories to sell their books and boost their public profile.

Polycrates was bishop of Ephesus and knew the history passed down by Polycarp etc. I would say he was in a better position than us. But it's easy to dismiss scholars (I wonder if you are familiar with Bauckham: I doubt you would have spoken of him in that way if you were) and dismiss evidence you don't like. What's your reasons for being so confident that the son of Zebedee wrote it?

 

[Daniel C]

Polycrates was bishop of Ephesus and knew the history passed down by Polycarp etc. I would say he was in a better position than us. But it's easy to dismiss scholars (I wonder if you are familiar with Bauckham: I doubt you would have spoken of him in that way if you were) and dismiss evidence you don't like. What's your reasons for being so confident that the son of Zebedee wrote it?

Well the other Gospels describe him that way when Jesus lists the twelve Apostles. Paul mentions a man named John in connection with the other apostles

Galatians 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

It can't be John Mark because he wrote the Gospel of Mark.

So the simplest and probably true explanation is that John the Apostle wrote the manuscripts.

 

[JackRT]

As for the scholar,they all think up new bombastic theories to sell their books and boost their public profile.

You paint with a rather broad bombastic brush. That is not my experience of scholars at all. The vast majority of scholars are motivated by a sincere desire to find the truth. Some people do get upset when the truth challenges their old comfortable assumptions.

 

[timtams]

Well the other Gospels describe him that way when Jesus lists the twelve Apostles. Paul mentions a man named John in connection with the other apostles

Galatians 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.


So the simplest and probably true explanation is that John the Apostle wrote the manuscripts.

That seems a bit weak. It's "probably" the son of Zebedee as he is mentioned along with the apostles. Jesus had seventy-two disciples he sent out. Was none of them named John?

You say Polycrates was wrong, but John's Gospel itself says that the author knew the high priest. in fact, he knew him so well that he was allowed into the heavily guarded palace of the high priest, no questions asked. That's asking a bit much of a Galilean fisherman, isn't it? So maybe Polycrates wasn't so wrong after all. John's Gospel also says he took Mary into his house from that hour, so apparently unless they had a high speed rail link, he lived in Jerusalem, not Galilee.

It can't be John Mark because he wrote the Gospel of Mark.

My vote was for John the Elder, not John Mark. BUT, who says John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? What chapter and verse did you find that in?

 

[Daniel C]

That seems a bit weak. It's "probably" the son of Zebedee as he is mentioned along with the apostles. Jesus had seventy-two disciples he sent out. Was none of them named John?

You say Polycrates was wrong, but John's Gospel itself says that the author knew the high priest. in fact, he knew him so well that he was allowed into the heavily guarded palace of the high priest, no questions asked. That's asking a bit much of a Galilean fisherman, isn't it? So maybe Polycrates wasn't so wrong after all. John's Gospel also says he took Mary into his house from that hour, so apparently unless they had a high speed rail link, he lived in Jerusalem, not Galilee.



My vote was for John the Elder, not John Mark. BUT, who says John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? What chapter and verse did you find that in?

Well if Paul met John and wrote about it I would say Paul is a greater witness than Polycrates.

As for John Mark you will probably reject it but this is the scripture:

Acts 12
12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.

14 And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.


So Peter regularly visited John marks mother's house,to meet John mark. We know he was frequented there because the mother recognised Peters voice.


I personal believe this is the house where the gospels were wrote.

 

[Daniel C]

You paint with a rather broad bombastic brush. That is not my experience of scholars at all. The vast majority of scholars are motivated by a sincere desire to find the truth. Some people do get upset when the truth challenges their old comfortable assumptions.

You can't even tell me why you don't believe it isn't the Apostle John who wrote the manuscripts,so what's all this talk about me being bombastic?

 

[timtams]

Well if Paul met John and wrote about it I would say Paul is a greater witness than Polycrates.

Wait a second. Paul mentions the Apostle John and you're acting like this somehow settles it. You do realize Paul didn't say anything about that John writing the Gospel? I seriously don't understand how you think this somehow settles it, or even why you think it's an argument.

As for John Mark you will probably reject it but this is the scripture:

Okay, a couple of things here.
1. You aren't God. Rejecting you doesn't mean i reject scripture.
2. None of the texts you quote say that John Mark wrote Mark's Gospel. Not one. You have inferred and/or imagined that part of it. Can't you differentiate between what it says and what you think it says?
Now what is your evidence for asserting that John Mark wrote Mark's Gospel? That Peter visited his house? That's your evidence????

 

[Daniel C]

Wait a second. Paul mentions the Apostle John and you're acting like this somehow settles it. You do realize Paul didn't say anything about that John writing the Gospel? I seriously don't understand how you think this somehow settles it, or even why you think it's an argument.


Okay, a couple of things here.
1. You aren't God. Rejecting you doesn't mean i reject scripture.
2. None of the texts you quote say that John Mark wrote Mark's Gospel. Not one. You have inferred and/or imagined that part of it. Can't you differentiate between what it says and what you think it says?
Now what is your evidence for asserting that John Mark wrote Mark's Gospel? That Peter visited his house? That's your evidence????

You're absolutely right it doesn't say Mark wrote Peters Gospel,but he could have and that highlights the circumstances that would have been done in. And Paul might not be sufficient enough evidence,depends on the person.

I don't think Peter would have wanted his identity revealed because he almost killed someone when Christ was arrested so the authorities would probably still be looking for him. So it would be sort of foolish to reveal Peter in Marks Gospel.

I don't want a debate I was just curious why you thought the author of Johns manuscripts wasn't the Apostle John.

Verdict: Mind not changed.

 

[timtams]

You're absolutely right it doesn't say Mark wrote Peters Gospel,but he could have and that highlights the circumstances that would have been done in.

Could have? That's the standard? Well then why "couldn't have" someone else have written it?

And Paul might not be sufficient enough evidence,depends on the person.

What evidence? How is Paul mentioning the Apostle John evidence that the Apostle John wrote John's Gospel? That isn't sufficient evidence, period.

I don't think Peter would have wanted his identity revealed because he almost killed someone when Christ was arrested so the authorities would probably still be looking for him. So it would be sort of foolish to reveal Peter in Marks Gospel.

So you're okay with wild speculation.

I don't want a debate I was just curious why you thought the author of Johns manuscripts wasn't the Apostle John.

Verdict: Mind not changed.

Hardly surprising when you simply go fishing for possibilities that support your speculations while dismissing out of hand any evidence or source that disagrees with it.
Verdict: You're wasting everyone's time on here.

 

[Daniel C]

Could have? That's the standard? Well then why "couldn't have" someone else have written it?




What evidence? How is Paul mentioning the Apostle John evidence that the Apostle John wrote John's Gospel? That isn't sufficient evidence, period.


So you're okay with wild speculation.



Hardly surprising when you simply go fishing for possibilities that support your speculations while dismissing out of hand any evidence or source that disagrees with it.
Verdict: You're wasting everyone's time on here.

Just so you know you actually presented no more evidence than I did. Two witness. A scholar and Polycrates. All my testimony is from the Bible.

This is not sufficient evidence to proof your theory. You may believe it is but it isn't. That's why I said you failed,because you didn't bring a strong enough case to proof your theory. Professional historians work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty or else nothing would be proven. So as the challenger to the Apostle Johns Gospel You need to proof the Apostle is not the writer. And you failed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

John, son of Zebedee, is clearly the author.

"Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true" (3 John 1:12).

^He shares the same style and language with the three epistles of John.

If we need more weight (when we have enough where Scripture speaks), you have those that lived near his time who said that he was the author.

There are a few indications that may imply that John might not’ve been the author. For example he refers to the sons of Zebedee without actually making any reference including himself as being one of the sons of Zebedee.

“Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Another indication is that it is commonly understood that Jesus charged John with taking care of Mary and in the book of John it is referred to in the third person.

“When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”
‭‭John‬ ‭19:26-27‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The entire book of John is written in a third person perspective. Nowhere do you see the words I or we in reference to something John participated in.

John is also commonly believed to be the disciple whom Jesus so loved and these are also conveyed in the third person.

“There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭13:23‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."”
‭‭John‬ ‭20:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work ), and threw himself into the sea.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:7‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:20‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I’ve actually never noticed this before. It’s an interesting subject.

 

[Jonaitis]

There are a few indications that may imply that John might not’ve been the author. For example he refers to the sons of Zebedee without actually making any reference including himself as being one of the sons of Zebedee.

“Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Another indication is that it is commonly understood that Jesus charged John with taking care of Mary and in the book of John it is referred to in the third person.

“When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”
‭‭John‬ ‭19:26-27‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The entire book of John is written in a third person perspective. Nowhere do you see the words I or we in reference to something John participated in.

John is also commonly believed to be the disciple whom Jesus so loved and these are also conveyed in the third person.

“There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭13:23‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."”
‭‭John‬ ‭20:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work ), and threw himself into the sea.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:7‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:20‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I’ve actually never noticed this before. It’s an interesting subject.

Inferences could be taken from several places, here's one of them from my investigation.

John, with Peter and James, were part of Christ's inner circle, this is non-debatable as we read throughout the gospel accounts that they were with Jesus in several events and miracles that none of the other disciples participated. The inference in this case is that most of your quotes has Peter directly mentioned in narrative with this "disciple whom Jesus loved." This makes sense, since Peter was always with John, like in Acts 3 healing the crippled man.

 

[timtams]

There are a few indications that may imply that John might not’ve been the author. For example he refers to the sons of Zebedee without actually making any reference including himself as being one of the sons of Zebedee.

“Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Another indication is that it is commonly understood that Jesus charged John with taking care of Mary and in the book of John it is referred to in the third person.

“When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”
‭‭John‬ ‭19:26-27‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The entire book of John is written in a third person perspective. Nowhere do you see the words I or we in reference to something John participated in.

John is also commonly believed to be the disciple whom Jesus so loved and these are also conveyed in the third person.

“There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭13:23‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."”
‭‭John‬ ‭20:2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work ), and threw himself into the sea.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:7‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"”
‭‭John‬ ‭21:20‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I’ve actually never noticed this before. It’s an interesting subject.

The thing is, however, it says that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Gospel. He must have described himself in the third person, but he wrote it:

John 20:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.