Who really wrote John's Gospel?

[larsenl1]

Catholic Tradition has been proven accurate many times over.

I learned last night that the place of the martyrdom of St. Peter and many other Christians was a hilltop in Rome. This is where St. Peter’s Basilica is now. When the current basilica was designed, Michaelangelo put the altar over the spot that tradition told us was St. Peter’s tomb. Archaeology found the actual tomb of St. Peter and the altar was directly over it, in a plum line. As accurate as if it were measured.

John the disciple of Christ wrote the Gospel of John.

How do we know where Napoleon fought his battles? How do we know about the barbarians invading Rome? Someone wrote it down! If we trust those sources, why is not the witness of John believable?

 

[anthony022071]

I think it would be a pretty easy experiment to test the ability of these scholars who compare writing styles of various books of the Bible and make postulations about authorship. One could take pieces by various writers, maybe not too famous so they wouldn’t be recognized, and show a piece they wrote in high school and then something in mid-life and then something near end life. You could also create writings, have college students instructed to write about a specific subject as freshmen and then write something as seniors. If you took one student’s freshman and senior paper, then added a senior paper from another (but writing on the freshman topic), put the three before one of the scholars, how would they do? Read a pre-written paper to someone, have them write it down from memory (maybe paragraph by paragraph), then do the same thing thirty years later, then give the papers to a bible scholar and ask them if it is by same author. Lots of ways to do it and at a minimal cost compared to any other kind of scientific study.

One thing I’ll bet: the bible scholars will only participate in such a study if they can do so on an anonymous basis so no one knows how they score. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

But this would just be an experiment in cross-analysis between writings written by known authors and at known dates,and in modern language. It would not say anything about whether the judgement of scholars in regard to scripture is reliable. No one can verify the identity of the writers and when they wrote in the way that can be done in the experiment. It is not as if there are fixed laws of nature in writing by which accurate information about the identity of the writers of scripture can be proven,as accurate information about physical causes and effects can be proven in physics. Instead of fixed laws of nature,scripture scholars make assumptions based upon the “modern world view” of Rudolph Bultmann,that is,scientific naturalism,and upon ideas from anthropology,sociology,and psychology.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Tradition has been proven accurate many times over.

I learned last night that the place of the martyrdom of St. Peter and many other Christians was a hilltop in Rome. This is where St. Peter’s Basilica is now. When the current basilica was designed, Michaelangelo put the altar over the spot that tradition told us was St. Peter’s tomb. Archaeology found the actual tomb of St. Peter and the altar was directly over it, in a plum line. As accurate as if it were measured.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because one church tradition is correct, therefore they must all be correct.

There are plenty of examples of longstanding traditions that no one would now defend, like the ascription of the Dionysian corpus to the person mentioned in Acts 17, or the legend of St. Christopher.

John the disciple of Christ wrote the Gospel of John.

But bare assertion doesn’t prove anything.

How do we know where Napoleon fought his battles? How do we know about the barbarians invading Rome? Someone wrote it down! If we trust those sources, why is not the witness of John believable?

I don’t follow this logic. Historians don’t trust any sources uncritically. We analyze, we compare, we consider alternative explanations.

Edwin

 

[anthony022071]

It is a logical fallacy to say that because one church tradition is correct, therefore they must all be correct.

There are plenty of examples of longstanding traditions that no one would now defend, like the ascription of the Dionysian corpus to the person mentioned in Acts 17, or the legend of St. Christopher.

The Church still recognizes St. Christopher as a real person.

I don’t follow this logic. Historians don’t trust any sources uncritically. We analyze, we compare, we consider alternative explanations.

Historians do trust sources uncritically,if there is no felt reason to doubt them,or if they
are written in a plain,sedate,apparently unbiased manner,without belief in supernatural causation,or if the sources support the historian’s own way of thinking.

 

[Contarini]

The Church still recognizes St. Christopher as a real person.

I’m not sure you’re correct there, but actually one could say that there was a martyr named St. Christopher without accepting the legend–and I was referring to the legend.

Historians do trust sources uncritically,if there is no felt reason to doubt them,or if they
are written in a plain,sedate,apparently unbiased manner,without mention of supernatural things.

Are you trained as a historian? I have a Ph.D. in religion with a specialization in the history of Christianity, and I did graduate work in the history department as well. I do know something about how historians proceed, and we are trained not to accept any sources uncritically. In practice, one can’t question everything, so you’re right that people often wind up trusting sources until a reason arises not to. But in principle, any single source can always be questioned–you want multiple independent sources of different kinds, ideally, before you can put a matter beyond reasonable doubt.

Edwin

 

[Arizona_Mike]

3/ The Book that Jesus Wrote, uses The New Testament Code from a Christian point of view, to show that the ‘resurrection’ was very real in terms of the science of the day, and indeed with the folk beliefs of many today. That is, when he was taken down from the cross, he had no detectable life signs, so was certified as dead. In the tomb, he was placed horizontal, in a cool place, and his body was dressed, and large quantities of bitter aloes were used, possibly as a purge. As a result, any toxic effects of the ‘vinegar’ tainted with myrrh were ameliorated, and life signs returned, followed by a nearly complete recovery.

As a former EMT, I can tell you that whole theory is complete and utter nonsense. We don’t have that kind of life-restoring technology now, and the idea (which is promulgated by Muslims) that “secret herbs” available in Jerusalem circa 33 AD were used to fake His death is the worst kind of pseudo-science, and is like something out of a Sax Rohmer novel.

The description of the Passion clearly describes a non-survivable (in a physical sense) accumulation of trauma. The scourging would have resulted in hypovolemic shock from the amount of blood loss, and barring massive IV infusion there would have been no way to restore the fluid loss using 1st century medical technology. His collapse while carrying the cross and his extreme thirst on the cross were likely from falling blood pressure due to blood loss and dehydration from extreme exertion and exposure to the elements on the cross. The description of "water, " or pleural effusion, coursing out of Jesus’ side after being pierced by a spear as described by John 19:34) is indicative of perimortem pericardial effusion, probably caused by sustained tachycardia from the sustained trauma of whipping, beating, physical exertion, and the sustained positional suffocation from crucifixion, as the diaphragm was unable to function and drive oxygen transport to the organs. Jesus’ kidneys and other organs would have begun shutting down early on from the effects of hypovolemic shock and the lack of oxygen transport.

The Passion was non-survivable from the standpoint of trauma care.

 

[larsenl1]

Are you trained as a historian? I have a Ph.D. in religion with a specialization in the history of Christianity, and I did graduate work in the history department as well. I do know something about how historians proceed, and we are trained not to accept any sources uncritically. In practice, one can’t question everything, so you’re right that people often wind up trusting sources until a reason arises not to. But in principle, any single source can always be questioned–you want multiple independent sources of different kinds, ideally, before you can put a matter beyond reasonable doubt.

Edwin

Edwin

I am curious then what do your studies lead you to think? Who wrote the Gospel of John and why do you come to this conclusion?

Thanks

 

[Julia_Mae]

Are you trained as a historian? I have a Ph.D. in religion with a specialization in the history of Christianity, and I did graduate work in the history department as well. I do know something about how historians proceed, and we are trained not to accept any sources uncritically. In practice, one can’t question everything, so you’re right that people often wind up trusting sources until a reason arises not to. But in principle, any single source can always be questioned–you want multiple independent sources of different kinds, ideally, before you can put a matter beyond reasonable doubt.

Edwin

I want to include something anthony said: ** or if the sources support the historian’s own way of thinking.**

So we have the ideal way research is supposed to be conducted and then we have the way it actually is. We also have he misunderstandings that lead us to believe we know for a fact those are Peter’s bones under the. They didn’t come with a label. OTOH, I have no problem attributing them to Peter because oral traditions are often highly accurate and the Christians of the time would have made careful note of the spot. But when larsen says this: I learned last night that the place of the martyrdom of St. Peter and many other Christians was a hilltop in Rome. Then we have to point out that people were not buried where they were killed. Not as far as I know, anyway.

Some of the post Vat2 horror was exemplified in the fact and work of the “Jesus Seminar,” from which we learn that Jesus never actually said anything that appears in Scripture except possibly “amen.” And then we have the Introductions to the Gospels in the NAB, which say silly things, like in Mark, where the Intro asserts the Gospel must have been written in Rome to a non-Jewish community because of an explanatory note in 7:3. I don’t even have a PhD but know that’s a logical fallacy.

Who wrote John’s gospel? No one knows. But what do know is that at least two of the Gospels evolved, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t have. Things weren’t copyrighted and editions and revisions weren’t marked a nor should they have been. It’s like Mark. There are those who believe that parts of it were written during Jesus’ lifetime. That the basis of the book is the redaction of letters from an apostle or disciple following Jesus around Palestine.

I see no reason to doubt John wrote the bulk of the Gospel attributed to him, especially in light of 1John.

 

[Pythons]

A very interesting case has been made that it was Lazarus who wrote it…
…As in the one Jesus raised from the dead.

disciplewhomjesusloved.com/beloved-disciple-fourth-gospel-author/

I’m not saying this is the case - all I’m saying is that I read the above short evidences…
…And was hard pressed to see anything wrong with what the author was saying.

It would be nice if a heavy-weight here could go through this thing ( takes about 20 minutes )…
…And see if there is a problem with the reasoning the author uses.

 

[bluelake]

I think it would be a pretty easy experiment to test the ability of these scholars who compare writing styles of various books of the Bible and make postulations about authorship. One could take pieces by various writers, maybe not too famous so they wouldn’t be recognized, and show a piece they wrote in high school and then something in mid-life and then something near end life. You could also create writings, have college students instructed to write about a specific subject as freshmen and then write something as seniors. If you took one student’s freshman and senior paper, then added a senior paper from another (but writing on the freshman topic), put the three before one of the scholars, how would they do? Read a pre-written paper to someone, have them write it down from memory (maybe paragraph by paragraph), then do the same thing thirty years later, then give the papers to a bible scholar and ask them if it is by same author. Lots of ways to do it and at a minimal cost compared to any other kind of scientific study.

One thing I’ll bet: the bible scholars will only participate in such a study if they can do so on an anonymous basis so no one knows how they score. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

After reading all that, the answer to understanding the word of God is… We walk by faith. Science is not needed.
Simply ask the Lord to reveal himself to you as you study the Bible. Do you have a Bible?

God bless you, he loves you.
bluelake

 

[Arizona_Mike]

One of the major reasons that I think John wrote the Gospel himself is because of Chapter 20:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag’dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first

So John, who also wrote:

*24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. *

…still found the space on the papyrus to tell us that he could run **just a little bit faster **than the first Pope and reached the empty tomb first.

That’s such an endearingly human thing to claim and include that it leads me to believe that it was not some anonymous 2nd century scribe who wrote the Gospel of John, it was John himself.