Who wrote John's Gospel

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The person who wrote the gospel had to be someone who was closely associated with Jesus to have been able to write down many personal details that the other gospel writers did not include in theirs. Also, to be accepted as part of the canon of Scripture, the writer had to have seen the resurrected Jesus, being personally appointed by Him to be one of the 12 Apostles of Christ, and performed miracles. The Apostle John fits all those criteria. John was also the one who remained at the crucifixion was able to record details that the others, who were not present, could not have included.

The three closest to Jesus were James, Peter, and John. They witnessed the transfiguration and John heard what Peter said, and God's answer to him. These were events only those three could have witnessed to directly.

 

[JackRT]

You can't even tell me why you don't believe it isn't the Apostle John who wrote the manuscripts,

Scholarly consensus is that GJohn was written late first century or early second century. This would make John the apostle close to 100 years old. While not unknown such an age would be incredibly unusual. In actual fact the names attached to the gospels were about a century after the fact and based on highly disputable legend. Many other New Testament documents are in a similar situation.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

Things are not nearly so obvious as you seem to think.

so what's all this talk about me being bombastic?

I do hope that you realize that you were the one who first used the word "bombastic" in your blanket condemnation of all scholars. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Daniel C]

Scholarly consensus is that GJohn was written late first century or early second century. This would make John the apostle close to 100 years old. While not unknown such an age would be incredibly unusual. In actual fact the names attached to the gospels were about a century after the fact and based on highly disputable legend. Many other New Testament documents are in a similar situation.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

Things are not nearly so obvious as you seem to think.



I do hope that you realize that you were the one who first used the word "bombastic" in your blanket condemnation of all scholars. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Well you don't know what I think. I never said things are obvious but I have heard most of the objections before,so in the past I have taken the time to look into it.

Here's something for you to consider: what is a scholar? What is a person qualified enough to be an authority on historical matters?

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[JackRT]

Well you don't know what I think. I never said things are obvious but I have heard most of the objections before,so in the past I have taken the time to look into it.

You have let me know in no unequivocal terms that you have no use for scholarship. I do know that you are no scholar. I am a scholar but my specialty was nuclear physics and mathematics. It took me a very long time and much effort to gain that qualification. I am quite confident that it is exactly the same way in Biblical scholarship.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, the author was a follower of Jesus. But as has often been noted, the author seems very familiar with Jerusalem and doesn't have much interest in Galilee. You allude to the Transfiguration, but in fact none of the Johannine writings mention this. Many scholars think that the Last Supper was at the Beloved Disciple's house. It would make sense that he lived in Jerusalem, since he knew the high priest personally, and since he was able to take Mary into his house "the same hour." You mention that the Beloved Disciple was at the cross, yet the Gospels say that the twelve apostles had all fled and abandoned and denied Jesus. That would seem to exclude the possibility that the Beloved Disciple was one of the twelve.

I don't understand your comment about the twelve apostles. Do you believe the NT was only written by members of the twelve?

You mention Peter, James and John, yet it was always Peter who was the closest. Yet the Beloved Disciple was loved above them all, while the son of Zebedee was third place among the twelve.

There were many gospels and letters to churches written during the First Century. The rule that was set by the council of Bishops in the Second Century was that any writing to be accepted as NT Scripture was on the three criteria that I previously stated. Luke, who was not one of the Twelve, was accepted because he witnessed the resurrected Christ, and was closely associated with Paul, Barnabas and Silas, being part of Paul's ministry team. John Mark was not one of the Twelve, but was associated with Paul and Peter, and got the bulk of his information from Peter. So both Luke and John Mark fitted the criteria of being one of the Twelve, or closely associated with them, as they were.

Paul letters are accepted because he witnessed the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus, appointed directly by Christ to be an Apostle, and had miraculous events as part of his ministry. During his three years in Arabia, Paul received his revelational teaching directly from Christ, not having any contact with the other Apostles until after that time and his 14 years in Tarsus, when Barnabas went and brought him to Antioch.

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

The word beloved is not in this verse.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then you've undone your own argument, because your argument for why it had to have been John the son of Zebedee was that it had to have been one of the twelve. Now you're saying it only had to be someone who saw the resurrection or was associated with the twelve. Which is it?

There are also a few issues with some of your statements.

1. There were no rules set by councils about canonicity in the second century. This particular myth is floated around a lot and seems to have originated by projecting into actual history the suggestions of twentieth-century scholars like Bruce. If you feel I am mistaken, you can prove me wrong by providing the names of these councils and the references to their rules, but I assure you that you would be wasting your time as they don't exist.

2. Luke was not a witness of the resurrection of Christ. One can see from Luke's prologue that he was reliant upon others, or one can consult the earliest Christian sources on the matter, such as Ireaneus, or one can note in Colossians that Luke was not listed among the Jewish coworkers of Paul.

But this is an irrelevant point anyway, a non sequitur, for if the criteria is only that one needed to have been associated with the twelve, then there is no grounds for you to insist that John the son of Zebedee must have written the Gospel of John.

3. You assume that John Mark was the author of the Gospel of Mark, even though a) there is no evidence for this in the NT; and b) they have been distinguished (as well as identified) throughout church history.

But this is an irrelevant point anyway, a non sequitur, for if the criteria is only that one needed to have witnessed the resurrection, then there is no grounds for you to insist that it had to have been one of the twelve and that therefore John the son of Zebedee must have written the Gospel of John.

Actually, I don't care about any of it. I know that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write, and that He guided the church councils to accept what we have as the canon of Holy Scripture. And that's good enough for me.

If it ain't good enough for you, well, too bad how sad!

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Good for you. Now kindly stop wasting people time by pretending to have knowledge about things you are ignorant about. It's not ethical. Just admit from the beginning you just believe the son of Zebedee wrote it with or without evidence and refrain from interjecting yourself in discussions of evidence.

Be careful about violating the forum rules by getting personal with me. This is not about me at all. Kick the ball and not the player.

 

[Daniel C]

You have let me know in no unequivocal terms that you have no use for scholarship. I do know that you are no scholar. I am a scholar but my specialty was nuclear physics and mathematics. It took me a very long time and much effort to gain that qualification. I am quite confident that it is exactly the same way in Biblical scholarship.

Your only criteria for being a scholar is doing something for a long time? I don't know how you can discount me as a scholar with such confidence but that sort of alludes to my point. People pick their favorite and laud them to champion their ideas,the justification being they are a scholar:


Psalm 118:8
''It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.''


You specialty was nuclear physics and mathematics and you're trying to imply after a long service at that your opinion counts. Maybe it does,I could't say but your definition is strange. Long service=valuable and qualified.

How can you discount me as a scholar if all it takes is to do something for a long time? It's selective.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So then read the context (chapter 21 not 20, my mistake) and you'll see for yourself that it's the disciple whom Jesus loved (verse 20).

Ahh yes thank you that is indeed very strong evidence. It is still interesting that it is written in the 3rd person. Perhaps it is pseudepigraphically written by another author or scribe.

 

[timtams]

edit