Who really wrote John's Gospel?

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall the story of the scholar who insisted that the Aeneid was not written by Virgil, but by someone else with the same name. I suppose the same might be true of John’s
Gospel.

 

[David_Zampino]

I recall the story of the scholar who insisted that the Aeneid was not written by Virgil, but by someone else with the same name. I suppose the same might be true of John’s
Gospel.

Robert Heinlein, in his novel “Double Star” says the same thing – although not using Virgil, but Homer.

Same thought applies, though . . .

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Robert Heinlein, in his novel “Double Star” says the same thing – although not using Virgil, but Homer.

Same thought applies, though . . .

Thanks. That is probably what my fuzzy memory derives from.

 

[anthony022071]

Modern biblical scholars take a naturalistic,anthropological approach to scripture,which means that they explain everything as if there was no supernatural causation in the world,and by cross-analysis of documents,and all traditions and doctrines are explained according to cultural context,social and economic factors,and political motivations. This approach is called “scientific” or the historical-critical method,although it really has little to do with science or method. They would reduce the authorship of scripture to a murky historical process like natural selection.

 

[David_Zampino]

Modern biblical scholars take a naturalistic,anthropological approach to scripture,which means that they explain everything as if there was no supernatural causation in the world,and by cross-analysis of documents,and all traditions and doctrines are explained according to cultural context,social and economic factors,and political motivations. This approach is called “scientific” or the historical-critical method,although it really has little to do with science or method. They would reduce the authorship of scripture to a murky historical process like natural selection.

Some scholars do. Not all, by any means.

Any tool or methodology can be misused. Many modern (meaning, last 200-250 year or so) scholars have misused various tools of criticism. However, it does not follow that since a tool has been misused, the tool cannot be used properly. It is false to suggest that all scholars who use elements of the historic-critical method of analysis deny the supernatural inspiration of Scripture.

It’s an unfair generalization.

 

[anthony022071]

Some scholars do. Not all, by any means.

Any tool or methodology can be misused. Many modern (meaning, last 200-250 year or so) scholars have misused various tools of criticism. However, it does not follow that since a tool has been misused, the tool cannot be used properly. It is false to suggest that all scholars who use elements of the historic-critical method of analysis deny the supernatural inspiration of Scripture.

It’s an unfair generalization.

I didn’t mean all schols,but it seems like those who approach the scriptures in a naturalistic,anthropological maanner are in the majority and have the most influence.
The historical-critical approach is not,properly speaking,a method or a tool,it is just an
way of interpretation that excludes the reality of the supernatural,and divine providence. It is akin to methodological naturalism in science.

 

[David_Zampino]

I didn’t mean all schols,but it seems like those who approach the scriptures in a naturalistic,anthropological maanner are in the majority and have the most influence.
The historical-critical approach is not,properly speaking,a method or a tool,it is just an
way of interpretation that excludes the reality of the supernatural,and divine providence. It is akin to methodological naturalism in science.

Absolute nonsense!

A tool is a tool. Your understanding of the interpretation of that tool, is not indicative of the tool itself.

Please give evidence of your position. Your “definition” is functionally in error.

Please also note that I will NOT deny that there are VERY MANY liberal scholars who DO use tools of criticism to try to deconstruct the Scriptures. BUT you are painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Absolute nonsense!

A tool is a tool. Your understanding of the interpretation of that tool, is not indicative of the tool itself.

Please give evidence of your position. Your “definition” is functionally in error.

Please also note that I will NOT deny that there are VERY MANY liberal scholars who DO use tools of criticism to try to deconstruct the Scriptures. BUT you are painting with too broad a brush.

Let us all please remember, it is not up to the scientist to prove that a miracle has not occurred, but up to the asserter to prove that it has.
That is the basis of science.
Science in general believes in only one miracle, which is the existence of the universe, for which it can find no non-miraculous explanation, though Science might not admit such, in so many words.

 

[anthony022071]

Absolute nonsense!

A tool is a tool. Your understanding of the interpretation of that tool, is not indicative of the tool itself.

Please give evidence of your position. Your “definition” is functionally in error.

Please also note that I will NOT deny that there are VERY MANY liberal scholars who DO use tools of criticism to try to deconstruct the Scriptures. BUT you are painting with too broad a brush.

A method is a physical act done to get a certain result. A tool is a physical object used to get something done. It isn’t proper to call an approach to interpreting texts a method or a tool. That hides the mentality behind historical criticism. It brings with it a naturalistic world view just as with methodological naturalism in science. It is the view that there is no supernatural interference in the world and that everything can be adequately explained according to natural causes alone. Pope Benedict has written and spoken about this problem many times. Scripture needs to be interpreted in light of the teachings and traditions of the Church. Even Catholic scholars who otherwise accept the teachings of the Church sometimes end up undermining scripture and doctrine and tradition when they write about scripture.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The early fathers attest that the Gospel of John was written by it’s purported author. (Interestingly, they also report that Matthew was written first)

As for the position that the Gospel of John was written by a Greek, this had been almost completely done away with by scholarship nearly twenty years ago.

The entire Gospel is structured with so much intimate Temple knowledge and imagery, typological tie-ins with the Torah, and deep understanding of Jewish feasts and traditions that even liberal scholars agree that it was at the very least written by a 1st century Jew. Nearly every single significant action by Jesus in the gospel is committed around a very specific Jewish feast or liturgical tradition that has an Old-Testament tie-in giving his action the deeper Jewish significance. Due to many first-hand details, many more scholars even go so far as to agree that it had to have been written by one of the Twelve. And yet they will still argue Johannine authorship…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The early fathers attest that the Gospel of John was written by it’s purported author. (Interestingly, they also report that Matthew was written first)

As for the position that the Gospel of John was written by a Greek, this had been almost completely done away with by scholarship nearly twenty years ago.

The entire Gospel is structured with so much intimate Temple knowledge and imagery, typological tie-ins with the Torah, and deep understanding of Jewish feasts and traditions that even liberal scholars agree that it was at the very least written by a 1st century Jew. Nearly every single significant action by Jesus in the gospel is committed around a very specific Jewish feast or liturgical tradition that has an Old-Testament tie-in giving his action the deeper Jewish significance. Due to many first-hand details, many more scholars even go so far as to agree that it had to have been written by one of the Twelve. And yet they will still argue Johannine authorship…

Perhaps one of the best witnesses to the integrity of both Matthew and John comes from Tatian.
From a structural analysis of both major recensions, Arabic, and Latin, of his text, it is clear that the basic skeletal structure he chose was a parallel of Matthew and John.
Thus it is clear that, whether these two accounts existed as written record or not, at least, the basic structure of both Gospels was very solid by AD 170, when the first recension of the Diatessaron appeared. Indeed, over 85% 0f both Gospels can be recovered intact from either recension.
It can be postulated that Matthew, who was a tax collector, and hence literate, and numerate, with a knowledge of some form of ‘shorthand’, in the Roman employ, produced a set of contemporaneous notes, which though now lost, can be seen as the ghostly reconstructed ‘Lost Gospel’, but which was in fact incorporated into the account he wrote up in later life.
Likewise, from the accounts of the Passion, it is clear that ‘that other disciple’, was a person with influence and authority in both temple and palace, for he was able to bring Peter into the scene of the trials. That he was of a priestly family, and possibly a senior priest himself, is not an unreasonable conclusion. Thus it would be a safe assumption that he would be a secure guardian for Our Lady, and probably also for the Magdalen, and we do indeed find very direct accounts attributable to this holy pair in his Gospel alone. So like Matthew, in John, we find a mixture of lively contemporaneous accounts, and highly developed exegesis.

 

[Lypher]

I always had trouble with a man leaning on Christ… Just sounded weird. I also had problems with wording of the “Disciple whom Christ Loved” often repeated in John. In any event I read the below book that has some pretty strong arguments that prove that John did not write the Gospel as well as arguments on who did.

You can down load and read the book for free here:

thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/Index.cfm

In any event (If True) it is actually very compelling and glorifies Christ even more…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Speaking as someone pretty familiar with Middle Eastern culture, a dude leaning on another dude is nothing new or eye-raising, particularly if they are close friends.

 

[Lypher]

Speaking as someone pretty familiar with Middle Eastern culture, a dude leaning on another dude is nothing new or eye-raising, particularly if they are close friends.

Nathan,

That is what I thought too, but this argument actually gives you a reason for many of the hard to explain passages in John. It does so in a pretty remarkable and praiseworthy way.

 

[patrick457]

Speaking as someone pretty familiar with Middle Eastern culture, a dude leaning on another dude is nothing new or eye-raising, particularly if they are close friends.

True. I mean, these are the cultures which are not afraid to use embraces or kisses as a common greeting in public (even with people of the same gender!) Even today, in Arab cultures it is common for male friends to hold hands as a sign of friendship.
There`re nothing wrong with these gestures, essentially. It is only because in Western culture such intimate gestures were considered to be, well, intimate, that they might look a bit wrong at first glance (and could send the wrong meaning).

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Lypher, you have to be careful if right off the bat, they are making Sola Scriptura statements. I read it through, and he makes A LOT of assumptions. It’s easier just to deal with some of his proofs for why John *isn’t *the author. Examples from website:

“The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved”, but they often refer to John by name – and yet all of those events where John was referenced by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that the one whom “Jesus loved” wrote.” **Response: Scholars widely agree John wrote the gospel as a *complement *to the synoptics. Hence the footwashing and bread of life discourse but not the passover, etc.
**
The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence that John ever avoided using his name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against the idea that the same man wrote both books. Response: Umm, no. John was a mystic, and wrote his Gospel with a specific theological agenda. Referring to himself as the disciple Jesus loved is inviting us to insert ourselves in John’s place. This is a humungo reason behind us seeing the deeper significance in Jesus giving his mother over to John, because in doing so, He was giving her over to every Christian. The early fathers noted this. Revelation was a completely different work under a different genre (apocalyptic) and so is going to have a different literary structure, closely patterning Ezekiel, as it were.

“The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This can’t be said of John, and the three times that Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having that relationship. Response: Okay. Why not? Oh that’s right, because it doesn’t fit your idea. The worst fear of His life awaiting his execution while in Gethsemane, and he picks those three to keep watch with him? You’re right, that couldn’t mean any kind of close bond. Or the mere fact that James and John argued over who would sit on which side? They must have had some inflated presumptions for people with no close bond…Good “exegesis.” Not.

The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on the false assumption that this author was one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at the supper help to promote this error; but details found in the Bible indicate that they were not alone at that event, including the fact that they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself suggests that he was not one of “the twelve”, but rather that he was one of the additional disciples who also followed Jesus. (See Appendix for more proof that he was not one of “the twelve”.) **Response: Again, prove it, keeping in mind John’s theological agenda. They weren’t just using someone’s home, they were using a room within someone’s home, implying privacy. Then add the fact that the only mention the Twelve. What are these other hints of more people? From where? **

If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the Lord’s Table and opens with the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again”. **Response: Except scholars universally agree that the footwashing was PRIOR to the meal, given normal Jewish custom and the ordination allusions. Merely saying Jesus sat down “again” means just that. So you draw a completely ridiculous conclusion, (that the disciple came after) from a faulty reading of the passage, then use that to support your claim? Less eisegesis please.
**

The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus, and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John. Response: Where does it say that? Nowhere. Interesting historical note, Eusebius says John was of a priestly family. Hmmm…

**These are just a few. The guy has some intriguing ideas, but if he makes a few fat blunders like this, I’m not going to take him over, say, :

Saint Irenaeus: “John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia.”**

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ve always been under the impression that the Apostle John wrote the original Gospel but before the Gospel reached its final canonical form it was edited and revised by disciples and early Church Fathers. I also always thought that Revelation was probably not written by John the Apostle but one of his followers who was writing using John’s voice, a common literary technique used to emulate somebody respected admired; I believe the technique was also used in 2 Peter .

 

[Lypher]

** The guy has some intriguing ideas, but if he makes a few fat blunders like this, I’m not going to take him over, say, :**

Saint Irenaeus: "John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."

Nathan,

I am not saying that he is correct, like you I find it interesting. At the tomb he Believed and yet later the Apostles had to be convinced?

The other point is that the NAB notes basically say that the book was written by three people. Do we believe our Bishops or not?

The concept also explains the Garden… which I always found strange to have a naked person running…

He explained the washing of the feet, pretty well actually…

His point about where Mary would go to live is also well thought out. Would John have had a house nearby?

Your comments about Sola Scriptura is on point and I actually found it totally irrelevant, as well as upsetting that he used it. I knew it would automatically turn away any hard core Catholic that read it. Who cares? I really don’t. I am not Sola Scriptura, but it seems to me that Church is currently having doubts, which is obvious or the NAB notes would not open with the Gospel the way it does. If the explanation glorifies Christ why not at least look at it and consider it?

I will bring it up to my Priest and have him walk through the arguments. In the end I will be better for it either way.

I am will to consider concepts if they are Biblical AND do not go against Infallible teaching. I do not believe that this has been Infallibly proclaimed or the USCCB would NOT have printed the NAB the way they did.

This explanation glorifies Christ …Far better then the explanation of John as author.

 

[Pawel_J]

I’ve always been under the impression that the Apostle John wrote the original Gospel but before the Gospel reached its final canonical form it was edited and revised by disciples and early Church Fathers. I also always thought that Revelation was probably not written by John the Apostle but one of his followers who was writing using John’s voice, a common literary technique used to emulate somebody respected admired; I believe the technique was also used in 2 Peter .

I agree. Using the name of a known person for the author was a good method to arouse interest in one’s own texts.
Coming back to the Gospel of John. If it was really written by John, the disciple of Jesus, why does he write about himself always in the third person? As far as I remember, he has never used the first person form. Besides how old must he have been when writing his Gospel - 80 or 90 years old? The Gospel was written in about 90 - 100 A.D.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Already covered that in the theological agenda behind John’s gospel. John writes his gospel as a complement to the Synoptics, even one of the early Fathers said this, I can find the quote if you want. There’s no reason to rehash the synoptic material, so John writes with a specific purpose, and he tells us that purpose in the very first chapter. He carefully structures his gospel, and used the third person for a reason, which I also covered above. AND YET, his gospel contains marks of an eyewitness, as many scholars have agreed.

I’m really not even sure why this is an issue. We have two writings by this guy. TWO. Think about that for a minute; really digest it. Think about what it actually means. People are making grand, historical-critical assumptions about Johannine communities, Lazarus being the Beloved Disciple, an “elder John” who is a different John, or whatever.

Now let’s go back to what I originally told you to think about. We are getting all this information, from what amounts to only two works, with two completely different theological motifs and literary styles, one being apacalyptic. I have written tons of essays, some in the same time period. I have referrred to myself in all kinds of different “persons.” I’d love to think some dude 2,000 years later is going to say how many Nathans wrote my stuff. Or maybe Nathan’s wife really wrote it, or his son, or his ex Army buddies as part of his Nathinian community. It would be even funnier if they did it based on TWO LETTERS.

So lets think about what we actually DO have. We have TWO writings, and a LOT of quotes from the early fathers saying who wrote what. Period. If you can’t trust the early Christian community; if you can’t trust our Tradition to tell us who wrote the Bible, I don’t see how you can keep a straight face when you debate protestants and tell them about how our “infallible tradition” wrote and compiled the Bible, and guides everything we do, etc. etc. Right, except when it comes to who wrote it. Apparently the people that help compiled the Bible also has a pretty good idea of who wrote it. Then the Germans start getting froggy and denying everything, and The Holy Father has to write a book laying the smack down.