N
NotWorthy
Guest
Where can I find these online (and in English!)? I was looking for them the other day.
- Status
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Apostle John wrote both (or either). Many theories of exact authorship are acceptable. The Apostle may or may not have written either or both. Just something to consider when comparing the two books.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t understand (sorry!) what “seemingly glaring contradictions” are you referring to? Thanks.
S
slave_of_god
Guest
what “both” refers to ?
Do you mean that the Apostle John may not be the author of his Gospel ?
S
slave_of_god
Guest
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Apostle John may have written the Gospel of John, or it could have been one of his followers/disciples.
Yes, that’s in accord with what the Catholic Church teaches regarding authorship of the Gospels.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Oh, ok, I was just curious about any so-called contradictions that concerned people.
Yes, we don’t know for sure, from the New Testament accounts, how long Jesus’ earthly ministry lasted. The Gospels suggest different lengths.
I guess that some might see that as a contradiction, and so a problem, but the Catholic Church doesn’t. Whether Jesus’ ministry lasted one year, or three years, or some other length of time is apparently not essential to the Catholic faith.
S
slave_of_god
Guest
Thanks,
But you missed the first Q : what “both” refers to ?
I want also to know Church teachings about synoptic Gospels authorship. Is there is any problems about them. or they were confirmed to be written by their authors. Thanks alot.
S
simspt
Guest
2 excellent resources that address your question r
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). A good current analysis of the text, which introduces you the basic themes, structure, and critical history of the text. A good place to start.
Raymond E. Brown & Francis J. Maloney, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003). This century has seen a number of great commentaries on John’s Gospel (Bultmann, Dodd, Schnackenburg). Brown’s two-volume commentary, The Gospel of John, Anchor Bible 29-29A (New York: Doubleday, 1969-1970), was arguably the most famous. Whereas many scholars emphasize John’s difference from the Synoptics, Brown emphasized their similarities; whereas many scholars deny or downplay its historical value, Brown emphasized it. Brown was at work revising and updating his classic, but died before he could complete things. Maloney, a leading expert on John, brought Brown’s work to completion.
S
simspt
Guest
2 excellent references that address your questions r
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). A good current analysis of the text, which introduces you the basic themes, structure, and critical history of the text. A good place to start.
Raymond E. Brown & Francis J. Maloney, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003). This century has seen a number of great commentaries on John’s Gospel (Bultmann, Dodd, Schnackenburg). Brown’s two-volume commentary, The Gospel of John, Anchor Bible 29-29A (New York: Doubleday, 1969-1970), was arguably the most famous. Whereas many scholars emphasize John’s difference from the Synoptics, Brown emphasized their similarities; whereas many scholars deny or downplay its historical value, Brown emphasized it. Brown was at work revising and updating his classic, but died before he could complete things. Maloney, a leading expert on John, brought Brown’s work to completion.
B
Barbkw
Guest
I’ve read and heard that John’s gospel is 90% unique.
From New Advent:
St. John the Evangelist
newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
"John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater.
In the Gospels the two brothers are often called after their father “the sons of Zebedee” and received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, i.e. “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17).
Originally they were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth.
According to the usual and entirely probable explanation they became, however, for a time disciples of John the Baptist, and were called by Christ from the circle of John’s followers, together with Peter and Andrew, to become His disciples (John 1:35-42). The first disciples returned with their new Master from the Jordan to Galilee and apparently both John and the others remained for some time with Jesus (cf. John ii, 12, 22; iv, 2, 8, 27 sqq.). Yet after the second return from Judea, John and his companions went back again to their trade of fishing until he and they were called by Christ to definitive discipleship (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20).
In the lists of the Apostles John has the second place (Acts 1:13), the third (Mark 3:17), and the fourth (Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:14), yet always after James with the exception of a few passages (Luke 8:51; 9:28 in the Greek text; Acts 1:13).
From James being thus placed first, the conclusion is drawn that John was the younger of the two brothers. In any case John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body.
Peter, James, and he were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and of the Agony in Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37).
Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the Last Supper (Luke 22:8).
At the Supper itself his place was next to Christ on Whose breast he leaned (John 13:23, 25).
According to the general interpretation John was also that “other disciple” who with Peter followed Christ after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest (John 18:15).
John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27).
After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ had truly risen (John 20:2-10).
When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John 21:7).
The Fourth Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to indicate himself without giving his name: “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.
After Christ’s Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, John took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the Church. We see him in the company of Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple (Acts 3:1 sqq.).
With Peter he is also thrown into prison (Acts 4:3).
Again, we find him with the prince of the Apostles visiting the newly converted in Samaria (Acts 8:14)."
(Continued)
From New Advent:
St. John the Evangelist
newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
"John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater.
In the Gospels the two brothers are often called after their father “the sons of Zebedee” and received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, i.e. “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17).
Originally they were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth.
According to the usual and entirely probable explanation they became, however, for a time disciples of John the Baptist, and were called by Christ from the circle of John’s followers, together with Peter and Andrew, to become His disciples (John 1:35-42). The first disciples returned with their new Master from the Jordan to Galilee and apparently both John and the others remained for some time with Jesus (cf. John ii, 12, 22; iv, 2, 8, 27 sqq.). Yet after the second return from Judea, John and his companions went back again to their trade of fishing until he and they were called by Christ to definitive discipleship (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20).
In the lists of the Apostles John has the second place (Acts 1:13), the third (Mark 3:17), and the fourth (Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:14), yet always after James with the exception of a few passages (Luke 8:51; 9:28 in the Greek text; Acts 1:13).
From James being thus placed first, the conclusion is drawn that John was the younger of the two brothers. In any case John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body.
Peter, James, and he were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and of the Agony in Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37).
Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the Last Supper (Luke 22:8).
At the Supper itself his place was next to Christ on Whose breast he leaned (John 13:23, 25).
According to the general interpretation John was also that “other disciple” who with Peter followed Christ after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest (John 18:15).
John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27).
After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ had truly risen (John 20:2-10).
When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John 21:7).
The Fourth Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to indicate himself without giving his name: “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.
After Christ’s Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, John took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the Church. We see him in the company of Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple (Acts 3:1 sqq.).
With Peter he is also thrown into prison (Acts 4:3).
Again, we find him with the prince of the Apostles visiting the newly converted in Samaria (Acts 8:14)."
(Continued)
B
Barbkw
Guest
"Of the other New-Testament writings, it is only from the three Epistles of John and the Apocalypse that anything further is learned concerning the person of the Apostle.
We have no positive information concerning the duration of this activity in Palestine. Apparently John in common with the other Apostles remained some twelve years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire (cf. Acts 12:1-17).
Notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of many writers, it does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time to Asia Minor and exercised his Apostolic office in various provinces there.
In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul’s first labours there (cf. “the brethren”, Acts 18:27, in addition to Priscilla and Aquila), and it is easy to connect a sojourn of John in these provinces with the fact that the Holy Ghost did not permit the Apostle Paul on his second missionary journey to proclaim the Gospel in Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia (Acts 16:6 sq.).
There is just as little against such an acceptation in the later account in Acts of St. Paul’s third missionary journey. But in any case such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted.
He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly along with Peter and James the Less as a “pillar of the Church”, and refers to the recognition which his Apostolic preaching of a Gospel free from the law received from these three, the most prominent men of the old Mother-Church at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9).
When Paul came again to Jerusalem after the second and after the third journey (Acts 18:22; 21:17 sq.) he seems no longer to have met John there. Some wish to draw the conclusion from this that John left Palestine between the years 52 and 55.
We may be permitted here to take as proven the unity of the author of these three writings handed down under the name of John and his identity with the Evangelist.
Both the Epistles and the Apocalypse, however, presuppose that their author John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Christ (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the Church.
Moreover, the Apocalypse tells us that its author was on the island of Patmos “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus”, when he was honoured with the heavenly Revelation contained in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:9)."
We have no positive information concerning the duration of this activity in Palestine. Apparently John in common with the other Apostles remained some twelve years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire (cf. Acts 12:1-17).
Notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of many writers, it does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time to Asia Minor and exercised his Apostolic office in various provinces there.
In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul’s first labours there (cf. “the brethren”, Acts 18:27, in addition to Priscilla and Aquila), and it is easy to connect a sojourn of John in these provinces with the fact that the Holy Ghost did not permit the Apostle Paul on his second missionary journey to proclaim the Gospel in Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia (Acts 16:6 sq.).
There is just as little against such an acceptation in the later account in Acts of St. Paul’s third missionary journey. But in any case such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted.
He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly along with Peter and James the Less as a “pillar of the Church”, and refers to the recognition which his Apostolic preaching of a Gospel free from the law received from these three, the most prominent men of the old Mother-Church at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9).
When Paul came again to Jerusalem after the second and after the third journey (Acts 18:22; 21:17 sq.) he seems no longer to have met John there. Some wish to draw the conclusion from this that John left Palestine between the years 52 and 55.
We may be permitted here to take as proven the unity of the author of these three writings handed down under the name of John and his identity with the Evangelist.
Both the Epistles and the Apocalypse, however, presuppose that their author John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Christ (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the Church.
Moreover, the Apocalypse tells us that its author was on the island of Patmos “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus”, when he was honoured with the heavenly Revelation contained in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:9)."
B
Barbkw
Guest
sacred-destinations.com/turkey/ephesus-house-of-the-virgin
"According to predominant Christian tradition, Mary was brought to Ephesus by the Apostle John after the Resurrection of Christ and lived out her days there. This is based mainly on the traditional belief that John came to Ephesus (see St. John’s Basilica) combined with the biblical statement that Jesus consigned her to John’s care (John 19:26-27).
Archaeologists who have examined the building identified as the House of the Virgin believe most of the building dates from the 6th or 7th century. But its foundations are much older and may well date from the 1st century AD, the time of Mary. This site had long been a place of pilgrimage for local Orthodox Christians.
The modern history of the Virgin Mary’s House is unusual. It was “discovered” in 1812 by a German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who never traveled away from her home."
"According to predominant Christian tradition, Mary was brought to Ephesus by the Apostle John after the Resurrection of Christ and lived out her days there. This is based mainly on the traditional belief that John came to Ephesus (see St. John’s Basilica) combined with the biblical statement that Jesus consigned her to John’s care (John 19:26-27).
Archaeologists who have examined the building identified as the House of the Virgin believe most of the building dates from the 6th or 7th century. But its foundations are much older and may well date from the 1st century AD, the time of Mary. This site had long been a place of pilgrimage for local Orthodox Christians.
The modern history of the Virgin Mary’s House is unusual. It was “discovered” in 1812 by a German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who never traveled away from her home."
S
steve53
Guest
It is tempting to give the author John many hats. If all are true, John would be one of the most amazing and consequential men in history!
You could just as easily say that the Author John was actually a “secret” disciple who began life as a young wealthy priest at the Jerusalem Second Temple. Attracted to renegade rabbis, he accompanied Nicodemus to talk to John the Baptist- and that is why the Baptizer is only quoted in the Book of John. It could have been the secret disciple John who arranged for the last supper in his own large house in a wealthy district of the upper city. It could have been this John who was the beloved Disciple, and who later that evening let Peter into the courtyard of Caiaphas after Jesus’ arrest. He could have been the only disciple of Jesus present at the crucifixion. this beloved Disciple was there in the Galilee when Jesus revealed himself to the fishermen. Later he became known as John the Evangelist, writing the Gospel of his name and eventually dying during the reign of Trajan.
Quite a resume, what?!
Source: Hagan “Fires of Rome” “Year of the Passover”
You could just as easily say that the Author John was actually a “secret” disciple who began life as a young wealthy priest at the Jerusalem Second Temple. Attracted to renegade rabbis, he accompanied Nicodemus to talk to John the Baptist- and that is why the Baptizer is only quoted in the Book of John. It could have been the secret disciple John who arranged for the last supper in his own large house in a wealthy district of the upper city. It could have been this John who was the beloved Disciple, and who later that evening let Peter into the courtyard of Caiaphas after Jesus’ arrest. He could have been the only disciple of Jesus present at the crucifixion. this beloved Disciple was there in the Galilee when Jesus revealed himself to the fishermen. Later he became known as John the Evangelist, writing the Gospel of his name and eventually dying during the reign of Trajan.
Quite a resume, what?!
Source: Hagan “Fires of Rome” “Year of the Passover”
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Does anyone really have a problem with this? John’s Gospel was written for a different reason than the Synoptics.
For the same reason, we see all of Paul’s Epistles being entirely unique. Each Epistle was meant to serve a different purpose.
This is exactly why John’s Gospel is unique.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Please clarify what I missed about the first Q, both? Sorry, I’m not following.
The Church teaches that the Gospels were written by sacred authors, with Apostolic authority. See the Catechism para 126. Whether the actual Apostle named as the author wrote them or not is open to speculation. The authority of the Apostolic witness preserved in the written accounts of Jesus’ revelation is not.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Agree. Excellent resources. Thanks.2 excellent resources that address your question r
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). A good current analysis of the text, which introduces you the basic themes, structure, and critical history of the text. A good place to start.
Raymond E. Brown & Francis J. Maloney, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003). This century has seen a number of great commentaries on John’s Gospel (Bultmann, Dodd, Schnackenburg). Brown’s two-volume commentary, The Gospel of John, Anchor Bible 29-29A (New York: Doubleday, 1969-1970), was arguably the most famous. Whereas many scholars emphasize John’s difference from the Synoptics, Brown emphasized their similarities; whereas many scholars deny or downplay its historical value, Brown emphasized it. Brown was at work revising and updating his classic, but died before he could complete things. Maloney, a leading expert on John, brought Brown’s work to completion.
- Status