Is Gospel of John a Fraud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnCarroll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnCarroll

Guest
Hello
I am taking a Bible study at a local Catholic church . At the opening class the teacher suggested that , although he personally believed that John wrote his Gospel , the book of John may, according to recent scholarship, have been written by some one other than John-- after he was already dead. The teacher said this does not interfere with our acceptance of the work . In the Gospel the writer, states many times that he was an eye witness to what is recorded. It seems to me that either John wrote or helped write this book ( as stated in the Muratorian Fragment) or this work is a fraud–not what it claims to be. How can it be any other way?

Clearly from reading a little in the Early Fathers those who were reading the work early on thought it was by John the Apostle.

The teacher says that writing a work and naming it after some famous person was common in ancient times. Do you know of other examples of this-- Other than fraudulent works --such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the like ? Is this a common Catholic scripture teaching?
 
Dear John,

No, the Gospel of John is not a fraud! It is an inspired work of the Holy Spirit and as such can not be a fraud. The following are some quotes from my research. The two texts that I am quoting from are the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Commentary and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Hope this helps!

The question and dispute is who wrote the Gospel of John.

“The author discreetly identifies himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:20, 24) and claims to be an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Christ (1:14; 19:35). However, this Beloved Disciple never reveals his name, although he appears several times in the Gospel narrative (13:23; 19:26; 20:2).” ICSB pg. 13

The identification of the “Beloved Disciple” has been argued and disputed even to this day.

"The combined weight of textual and traditional evidence suggests that this disciple is the Apostles John, one of the sons of Zebedee (Mt 4:21). . . Although John’s authorship is disputed by many today, no alternative attempt to identify the Beloved Disciple aligns the evidence as clearly and convincingly as the traditional one. " ICSB pg. 13

“The “writing down” of Johannine traditions was clearly part of the ongoing life of the community. It may have been the result of a “Johannine school” of disciples of the Beloved Disciple and teachers within the Johannine churches. There is sufficient unity in the literary composition and the narrated point of view in the Gospel to justify the claim that a single individual was responsible for the structure of the gospel narrative. But the importance of the community’s history of faith in shaping the Johannine tradition makes preoccupation with a single Johannine author inappropriate today.” TNJBC pg. 946
 
40.png
tmak:
But the importance of the community’s history of faith in shaping the Johannine tradition makes preoccupation with a single Johannine author inappropriate today." TNJBC pg. 946
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
 
40.png
JohnCarroll:
What does this mean?
Click to expand...
My interpretation of this is: The author had an intent and purpose in writing the Gospel of John (as did the other evangelists) for a specific audience and as such the content was shaped by the Johannine community and tradition. We can easily get side tracked when we devote too much time in trying to identify the author of the message.

I myself believe that the Gospel of John is the work of John the Apostle however he may have not been the final editor of the work. As your teacher said, it would have been common for disciples of John to have edited his work into its final form.

Tom
 
40.png
tmak:
We can easily get side tracked when we devote too much time in trying to identify the author of the message.

Tom
Click to expand...
I see your point and thank you for taking the time to answer my posts but don’t you think the authorship of a particular book , John in this case, is absolutely important when deciding to take it seriously? Daniel is another of these disputed authorship things where date of writing and who wrote it seem so important that it is not possible to take it seriously with out knowing this. Surely the Church accepted a particular book into the Canon thinking it knew who the author was?
 
I tend to try not to be too domatic. There are many places within the Scriptures that have been edited, whether by omiting or clarifiying. There are alot of good theories about the OT books like the Torah that was most likely compiled over time from different traditions. And also places like Mark 16:9-20. In some Greek manuscripts there are some that omit, some have a shorter ending and some with a larger ending.

As for John, some “scholars” do believe that the work shows signs of multiple authorship, and it does I guess in ways. But without a doubt it had to be at the very least completely edited by 200AD because of manuscript evidence like Bodmar and Beatty papyrus manuscripts, and also including many Early Church Fathers quotes. Early church tradition is unanimous
in ascribing the fourth gospel to John
1. Ireneus (c. A.D. 130-202) was the first to name
the gospel of John and said that it was written
after the other gospels from Ephesus1
2. John was either cited or named as authentic during
the first four centuries by the following2
a. Clement of Rome (c. 95-97)
b. Polycarp (c. 110-150)
c. Papias (c. 130-40)
d. Irenaeus (c. 130-202)
e. Justin Martyr (c. 150-155)
f. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
g. Tertullian (c. 150-220)
h. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200)
i. The Latin Marcionite Prologue (c. 200)
j. Origen (c. 185-254)
k. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386)
l. Eusebius (c. 325-340)
m. Jerome (c. 340-420)
n. Augustine (c. 400)
 
40.png
JohnCarroll:
I see your point and thank you for taking the time to answer my posts but don’t you think the authorship of a particular book , John in this case, is absolutely important when deciding to take it seriously? Daniel is another of these disputed authorship things where date of writing and who wrote it seem so important that it is not possible to take it seriously with out knowing this. Surely the Church accepted a particular book into the Canon thinking it knew who the author was?
Click to expand...
Dear John,

I think it would be great top know who the author was! I would not use the word “important” with reference to the evangelist and for two reasons. 1) The books are all inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2) I believe that we do not know exactly who the authors of the individual books are and at this stage of history will never be able to determine who they were.

Remember that before the books were actually put into writing, there already was the oral tradition.

Although one can make a serious study of the history of the individual books of Scripture the 2000 year history will make it all but impossible to reconstruct a definitive history of the books. The message is the most important!

Tom
 
I agree tmak. I got to thinking about “to the Hebrews” writing, and how scholarship really is not for sure who the author is. Some say Paul, some say Luke, some say Clement of Rome. I don’t know, but I do believe it is inspired.
 
I am not a scholar and I haven’t read through ‘John’ lately, but my Catholic eye looks through it and sees a magnificent version of the ministry of Christ. What a spectacular, non-synoptic version of the events of those time.

I am particularly interested in the closing verse

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (NIV, as a matter of fact)

What’s your take on this? Is the writer trying to embellish, if that were possible, the gospel message?

I think the verse is literally true. But, the things that Jesus has done (and has yet to accomplish) are things outside of His lifetime on earth. So, what Jesus did in my life, and what He did in your life, etc. were written down, the books, indeed, would fill the world. What would your book say?
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
I am particularly interested in the closing verse

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (NIV, as a matter of fact)

What’s your take on this? Is the writer trying to embellish, if that were possible, the gospel message?

I What would your book say?
Click to expand...
I take this to mean that Scripture does not contain everything that Jesus did here on earth. . . that there were many other things He did and said that were not written down.

Tom
 
In the Gospel of John, he is the only one writer of the gospel that describe Jesus as the Lamb of God. You see mentioned it 28 time in the book of revelation.
So , the writer make a enfasis to call Jesus as Lamb, so important in the Mass and the Book of revelation
 
40.png
copland:
I many Early Church Fathers quotes. Early church tradition is unanimous
in ascribing the fourth gospel to John
1. Ireneus (c. A.D. 130-202) was the first to name
the gospel of John and said that it was written
after the other gospels from Ephesus1
2. John was either cited or named as authentic during
the first four centuries by the following2
a. Clement of Rome (c. 95-97)
b. Polycarp (c. 110-150)
c. Papias (c. 130-40)
d. Irenaeus (c. 130-202)
e. Justin Martyr (c. 150-155)
f. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
g. Tertullian (c. 150-220)
h. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200)
i. The Latin Marcionite Prologue (c. 200)
j. Origen (c. 185-254)
k. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386)
l. Eusebius (c. 325-340)
m. Jerome (c. 340-420)
n. Augustine (c. 400)
Click to expand...
Copland,

But was John the evangelist the same John the Apostle?

See the following from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary:

"bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), defended the apostolicity of John and its inclusion in the Christian canon of four Gospels by appealing to the tradition that was circulating in Asia Minor in his time. He affirms that it was composed by the Beloved Disciple, named John, at Ephesus toward the end of his life. Irenaeus has heard that John had lived until the time of Trajan, i.e., the beginning of the 2nd century A.D… However, Irenaeus also appears to have confused the apostle, John the son of Zebedee, with a presbyter from Asia Minor known as John. Since Irenaeus claims to have received his information as a child from Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (d. 156), we should not be overly surprised at the confusion. The church historian Eusebius also recognized that Irenaeus had confused two different persons known as “John”. TNJBC pg. 946
 
40.png
tmak:
Copland,

But was John the evangelist the same John the Apostle?

See the following from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary:

"bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), defended the apostolicity of John and its inclusion in the Christian canon of four Gospels by appealing to the tradition that was circulating in Asia Minor in his time. He affirms that it was composed by the Beloved Disciple, named John, at Ephesus toward the end of his life. Irenaeus has heard that John had lived until the time of Trajan, i.e., the beginning of the 2nd century A.D… However, Irenaeus also appears to have confused the apostle, John the son of Zebedee, with a presbyter from Asia Minor known as John. Since Irenaeus claims to have received his information as a child from Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (d. 156), we should not be overly surprised at the confusion. The church historian Eusebius also recognized that Irenaeus had confused two different persons known as “John”. TNJBC pg. 946
Click to expand...
Well, if Ireneaus studied with Polycarp and Polycarp with John , wouldn’t Polycarp know which John ( if there were two) he saw learning from? --isn’t it possible that it is Eusebius that was confused? See an excellent defense here:
newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#III
 
40.png
JohnCarroll:
Well, if Ireneaus studied with Polycarp and Polycarp with John , wouldn’t Polycarp know which John ( if there were two) he saw learning from? --isn’t it possible that it is Eusebius that was confused? See an excellent defense here:
newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#III
Click to expand...
An excellent defense indeed! Thank you!

Just one note:

“As a boy Irenaeus had known Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was supposed to have known John.” AITTNT pg. 368

An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown
 
40.png
tmak:
An excellent defense indeed! Thank you!

Just one note:

“As a boy Irenaeus had known Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was supposed to have known John.” AITTNT pg. 368

An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown
Click to expand...
According to Jurgens in his “Faith of the Early Fathers” Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp who was a student of John. I could find the Irenaeus quotes if you need them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top