Did possibly the new church write the Book of John?

[Stephen.Andrew]

Did possibly the new church write the Book of John?
““Emotion recollected in tranquility.” That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit.”

 

[OddBird]

What do you mean by “the new church”?

 

[Gorgias]

…and why would you assert John as “according to the Holy Spirit” and thus, implicitly, that the Synoptics are not thus, as well?

 

[edward_george1]

Emotion recollected in tranquility.” That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel.

I’m not sure that is a perfect description of John’s Gospel. What does it even mean? Where did that come from? I would say that it’s more a stirring defense of the Divinity of Christ. John arguably depicts less emotion than the other Gospels, since Jesus is shown to be calmly powerful, especially in the Passion.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[BartholomewB]

…and why would you assert John as “according to the Holy Spirit” and thus, implicitly, that the Synoptics are not thus, as well?

For me, the difference between John and the Synoptics is best summed up in the old aphorism, “Matthew is for Jews, Mark is for Romans, Luke is for Greeks, and John is for advanced-level students.”

 

[Dovekin]

“Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.”
― William Wordsworth

I am not sure I would apply it here, but it makes some sense. The narrator identifies himself as the beloved disciple after all. There is a real intimacy that is not as evident in the synoptics.

 

[KMC]

Did possibly the new church write the Book of John?
““Emotion recollected in tranquility.” That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit.”

All Scripture has two authors. God is primary, John was the “instrumental” writer.

 

[tafan2]

I’m not sure that is a perfect description of John’s Gospel. What does it even mean?

I do not even understand the question in the thread title? I suppose the Church was still considered new at the time it was written, it should still be considered new today. Can the authorship be attributed to the Church? Well, John was a member of the Church, so perhaps one could say that. But it doesn’t seem quite right to attribute the authorship to the Church as opposed to John.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I too am confused by the question. I have no idea what “the new church” means. If the OP means the church at the time collectively wrote a Gospel, it seems pretty obvious that the Church at the time this was written didn’t have their act together to work as a committee to write a gospel. Also, the gospel indicates first-hand knowledge of Jesus and of events that would only be known by someone who was a close personal friend of Jesus.

I further see no reason to presume that an individual author each wrote each of the three Synoptics but somehow decide John’s Gospel was written by committee.

 

[fhansen]

I am not sure I would apply it here, but it makes some sense. The narrator identifies himself as the beloved disciple after all. There is a real intimacy that is not as evident in the synoptics.

I agree with this. John seems to have a very deep understanding of the gospel-and passionate love for the Lord. Different in kind in any case.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Gospel of John was audited by St Ignatius and St Polycarp. It became my favorite Gospel after reading “Jesus of Nazareth,” by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.

Not only is is more spiritually correct, it’s probably more historically correct.

Next to John’s Gospel my favorite is Matthew.

 

[JulianN]

I’m not sure that is a perfect description of John’s Gospel. What does it even mean? Where did that come from?

It comes from Wordsworth – it’s his description of what poetry is. Perhaps the OP just means the Gospel of John is poetic? But yes, the question and assertion in the OP are certainly unclear.

 

[goout]

The Gospel of John is “A drop of water in which an elephant can swim”.

 

[edward_george1]

I think it’s poetic, to be sure, but I don’t think that quote is the “perfect description” of John’s Gospel.

 

[JulianN]

Agreed.

12345

 

[goout]

Did possibly the new church write the Book of John?
Are you asking if the Gospel of John was written by the Johanine community rather than The Apostle named John?
All the Gospels came out of the Christian community that they…came out of. Scripture is not necessarily written by individuals in trances, alone in their rooms. Scripture is breathed out of the Church as a community of believers. We attribute them to an individual apostle to the best of our ability, and they are definitely rooted in that real history.

 

[tafan2]

Perhaps you mean more spiritually meaningful, or spiritually satisfying. I just don’t like the phrase spiritually correct. But that’s just me.

As to historical correctness, I have seen it argued both ways. I suspect the passion narrative is. But I think overall, it is hard to say.

 

[brianjmc1]

I always believed, the gospel of John was different because Mary the Blessed Mother lived with him. She probably had more knowledge of our Lord then anyone…

 

[Mary888]

No. 10 characters.

 

[silentwitness]

My current thinking is that Saint John wrote the Gospel of John and his followers added the last chapter very shortly after his death as an addendum which was then incorporated into the text.

For me the addendum adds authenticity to the view that Saint John wrote the gospel.