author of john

[junostarlighter]

i’ve just recently heard two people discussing over whether john the apostle wrote the gospel of john or not. this is a new one to me…so who was the author?

 

[patg]

junostarlighter:

i’ve just recently heard two people discussing over whether john the apostle wrote the gospel of john or not. this is a new one to me…so who was the author?

There is no way to really know. Some accept the traditions and some question them. Determining authorship is especially hard for several reasons, such as:

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copiesof the gospels.

The translations all of us use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

It was common and acceptable in those times for writers to attribute authorship to “more famous” people in order to indicate where the philosophies in the work originated and sometimes just to gain stature for the work. For example, it is doubted that Moses is the sole author of the Torah or that Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him. There are also parts of Mark and John which are commonly attributed to other than the original author.

 

[Fidelis]

patg:

There is no way to really know. Some accept the traditions and some question them. Determining authorship is especially hard for several reasons, such as:

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copiesof the gospels.

The translations all of us use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

It was common and acceptable in those times for writers to attribute authorship to “more famous” people in order to indicate where the philosophies in the work originated and sometimes just to gain stature for the work. For example, it is doubted that Moses is the sole author of the Torah or that Paul is the author of all the letters attributed to him. There are also parts of Mark and John which are commonly attributed to other than the original author.

ON THE OTHER HAND…

John [the apostle] is the inspired author of the fourth Gospel. This is explicitly recognized by tradition and witnessed to by, among others, Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen. It is also borne out by internal evidence of the text: the author’s familiarity with Jewish customs and his policy of pointing out how the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled (the cleansing of the Temple, the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the unbelief of the Jews, the distribution of Jesus’ clothes and the casting of lots for his tunic, the piercing of his side with a lance); the vivid eyewitness quality of many of his accounts; his detailed knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem (he knows that the portico of Solomon is part of the Temple; that there was a pavement in the praetorium called Gabbatha; that the pool of Bethzatha has five porticoes and is located near the Sheep Gate); and, finally, by the wealth of detail which gives the narrative a special freshness and originality which could only come from an eyewitness.

To this should be added the fact that whereas the synoptics expressly mention John ( Matthew three times, Luke seven and Mark nine), the fourth Gospel never gives his name, and never refers to his family, except on one occasion when it mentions the sons of Zebedee (21:2). Because the author seems to hide his true identity by using the literary form of ‘he whom Jesus loved’ (13:23) and this could only refer to our Lord’s three most intimate apostles (Peter, James and John: Matt. 17:12 Mark 14:33), we can conclude by process of elimination that this disciple was John, because we know James was already dead (he died in the year 44, in the reign of Agrippa) and Peter asked this disciple a question (13:24) but Peter had also died a martyr’s death in Rome during Nero’s persecution of the Church, which began in 64.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ntg.asp

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis:

ON THE OTHER HAND…

Fair enough - but none of that gives certainty: it can’t tell us the answer to the poster’s question by giving us a solidly certain answer, as no such solidly certain answer is to be had; all we have are people’s theories and ideas and inferences; and that is what they remain, however ancient they may be. In any case, the certainty looked for is not needed - we have the Johannine writings, regardless of their authorship. More importantly still, we have the Gospel which they, and the three synoptic gospels, reflect ​

 

[Fidelis]

## Fair enough - but none of that gives certainty: it can’t tell us the answer to the poster’s question by giving us a solidly certain answer, as no such solidly certain answer is to be had; all we have are people’s theories and ideas and inferences; and that is what they remain, however ancient they may be.

I didn’t see the OP ask for a “solidly certain answer” – sounded more like he was just seeking reasonable assurance.

Actually, thse are not just the “theories and ideas of people”-- these are the testimonies of the very first Christians directly antecedent to the first apostles–some of whom KNEW the first apostles. The Church has always held their testimonies in high regard, acknowledging the fact that they lived so close to the times of the apostles and the heavy emphasis of accurate oral tradition among the ancients.

In any case, the certainty looked for is not needed - we have the Johannine writings, regardless of their authorship. More importantly still, we have the Gospel which they, and the three synoptic gospels, reflect ##

Hmm…So the historical criticism mavens like to say. However, given the Church’s constant tradition and since the author of this Gospel specifically avers that he was an eyewitness to all these things (John 19:35; 21:24), you can imagine it IS important to some people.

 

[scriabin]

Why do we doubt the reliable witness of the early Christians?

Is it fair to use our modern day, academic criteria of authenticity to a culture 20 centuries ago?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

scriabin:

Why do we doubt the reliable witness of the early Christians?

Is it fair to use our modern day, academic criteria of authenticity to a culture 20 centuries ago?

Thats a good key point that has been lost today in many circles. Most so called “scholars” today are totally worthless and have their own new spin on things no matter how off the wall it is, mostly with the intention selling books (and at the same time leading people astray).

 

[Liberalsaved]

It’s possible that nothing was written down until decades after Jesus died. It’s a big mystery. But it makes for a good story if you’re a writer (if you’re a good writer, that is).

 

[davethecatholic]

Catholic Dude:

Thats a good key point that has been lost today in many circles. Most so called “scholars” today are totally worthless and have their own new spin on things no matter how off the wall it is, mostly with the intention selling books (and at the same time leading people astray).

Amen to that!!

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) — In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) — St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. — St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.)