A
abucs
Guest
thoughts on the John(s) who wrote the fourth Gospel and Revelation.
Was it John the apostle or some other John ? Why ?
Was it John the apostle or some other John ? Why ?
- Status
L
Leopard
Guest
Traditionally, the author of both is considered to be John the Apostle, “the Disciple Jesus loved.” Some recent scholars question whether both books were written by the same author or whether either was written by the apostle John.
I do not know their reasons for thinking this, but before someone chimes in and says that it’s because they are a bunch of modernist yahoos, I will grant that they probably have what they consider to be good reasons to question the author’s identity, and are doing so with the intention of trying to firmly establish the historical fact, whatever it may be.
I do not know their reasons for thinking this, but before someone chimes in and says that it’s because they are a bunch of modernist yahoos, I will grant that they probably have what they consider to be good reasons to question the author’s identity, and are doing so with the intention of trying to firmly establish the historical fact, whatever it may be.
F
FAB
Guest
The Gospel of John is believed to have been written by a deciple of John the apostle. The reason is the high quality of the Greek.
Revelation is not though to have been written by the same individual since the Greek does not come up the same level of education.
Peace,
FAB
R
roanoker
Guest
The greatest Chistian historian who lived, Eusibius(3rd. and 4th. centuries), tells us that the Greek used in the Gospel of John is very elegant and correct, while the Greek of Revelations is so coarse and crude as to be almost vulgar. Therefore he felt that it was impossible for one author to have written both books. Eusbius was a greek, and devoted his entire life to researching church history.
L
Luke65
Guest
Right, but then again, we don’t see the word “Saint” before the name “Eusebius”. That’s not because he leaned on his own understanding on this issue, but other more important issues (he apparently believed in the Arian heresy), but its a symptom of the same problem. But behold:
"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” (John 21:20-22)
"I, John… turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,”… When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!” (Revelation 1:9-18)
F
FAB
Guest
This doesn’t prove that John the apostle actually wrote either book. The previous quotes are correct as far as our understanding of the authors.
Peace,
FAB
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
The Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X addressed the question of the authorship of the fourth Gospel. Here’s what they had to say:
Concerning the Author and Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel
I: Does the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church dating back to the second century and witnessed to principally : (a) by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, and even by heretics, whose testimonies and allusions must have been derived from the disciples or first successors of the Apostles and so be linked with the very origin of the book; (b) by the name of the author of the fourth Gospel having been at all times and places in the canon and lists of the sacred books; (c) by the most ancient manuscripts of those books and the various versions; (d) by public liturgical use in the whole world from the very beginnings of the Church; prove that John the Apostle and no other is to be acknowledged as the author of the fourth Gospel, and that by an historical argument so firmly established (without reference to theological considerations) that the reasons adduced by critics to the contrary in no way weaken this tradition?
Answer: In the affirmative.
II: Should, further, internal reasons derived from the text of the fourth Gospel considered by itself, from the witness of the writer and the manifest relationship of the Gospel itself to the first Epistle of John the Apostle, be judged to confirm the tradition that unhesitatingly attributes the fourth Gospel to the same Apostle? And can the difficulties which arise from a comparison of the same Gospel with the other three, in view of the differences of time, aim, and hearers, for whom or against whom the author wrote, be given reasonable solutions, as has been done by the holy Fathers and Catholic exegetes in various works?
Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.
III: Notwithstanding the practice which has flourished consistently in the whole Church from the earliest times, of arguing from the fourth Gospel as from a strictly historical document, and in consideration no less of the special character of the same Gospel and the manifest intention of the author to illustrate and vindicate the divinity of Christ from the very acts and discourses of our Lord, may it be said that the facts narrated in the fourth Gospel were invented wholly or in part, as allegories or doctrinal symbols and that the discourses of our Lord are not properly and truly the discourses of our Lord himself but the theological compositions of the writer though placed in the mouth of our Lord?
Answer: In the negative.
May 29, 1907 (*** 40 [1907] 383f; EB 180ff; Dz 2110)
The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the authorship of the apocalypse and affirms that it was written by John the Apostle.
Beware of the novelties of the so-called biblical scholars of our day. They are usually Liberals who seek to undermine what the Church has always taught about the Bible. These are the same people who will try to convince us that the miracles of the Bible did not actually take place, and that the characters of the Bible were not real. Avoid these people and stick with what the Church has always taught.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Here’s how I’ve had it explained:
The reason the Greek is so much more elegant in the Gospel is because it was written while John was in Ephesus, with his disciples- there he probably had help writing it, polishing the grammar, etc.
Revelation, however, was written on Patmos, while John was alone (exiled)- he had to write it by himself, and as Greek was not his first language, the grammar wouldn’t be perfect.
The reason the Greek is so much more elegant in the Gospel is because it was written while John was in Ephesus, with his disciples- there he probably had help writing it, polishing the grammar, etc.
Revelation, however, was written on Patmos, while John was alone (exiled)- he had to write it by himself, and as Greek was not his first language, the grammar wouldn’t be perfect.
F
FAB
Guest
The allowing and promoting of Biblical Cristism methods by the Church with Vatican II has changed these teachings. It doesn’t change the truth of God’s salvation only our understanding of the development of the scriptures.
Peace,
FAB
J
James0235
Guest
F
FAB
Guest
Nice One
P
palmas85
Guest
In all honesty, does it really matter?
They were both inspired by God regardless as to who wrote them.
They were both inspired by God regardless as to who wrote them.
F
FAB
Guest
The reason why it matters is that it effects our understanding, interpetation and teaching on the scriptures. The Gospel of John was written to educated Greek Christain converts (there were not called Catholic yet) who had Helenist backgrounds in understanding and knowlege. It is part of what adds to the beauty of the Gospel and why it can be understood on a variety of levels.
Revelations needs to be understood in light of the seven Christain communties for whom it was written and the persecution they were suffering. It’s important so not to teach it as the end of the world, but as God’s continuing care for the world.
Peace,
FAB
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
No it hasn’t. You might reject those teachings and attempt to justify it based on “Vatican II” (as everyone else does who reject what the Church has always taught), but your rejection of that teaching does not mean the Church has “changed these teachings”. It just means that you yourself do not believe those Church teachings.
Let me guess. I bet you do not believe the historical teachings from the Bible do you? Do you beleive that the Bible is inherent even when it discusses historical and scientific matters?
Don’t be fooled by the fools. Stick with what the Church has always taught and don’t depart from it under the specious pretext of “Vatican II changed it”, or “a more profound understanding”.
F
FAB
Guest
Dear Yours Truly,
The teachings of the Church do change over time based on changes in understanding and as guided by the Holy Spirit. At the time of St. Pius X, there was no biblcal study required. It was taught as the word of God and only clergy was to interpet it, since the people could not understand the scriptures for themselves. We are now encouraged to read the bible. Part of our understanding is through biblical critisizm methods to find the truth of God’s Message. This is a drastic change in the church teachings.
As far as my belief in the bible and uunderstanding. I have had several simesters of Catholic Biblical Studies at our local siminary. What the Church teaches is that the bible is the inspired word of God and is without error in matters of the truth to salvation.
The are both historical and scientific errors in the Old Testiment which is why it is important to understand the who the books were written for, thier historical point in time, the source and a number of other considerations to be able to understand the truth of God’s message. The New Testament needs also to be understood in light of the evangelist who wrote it. Luke for instance was writing specifically to explain and record the events surrounding Jesus’s mission. By no means should a deeper understanding of how and why the books were written take away from thier meaning and purpose, but should add to our understanding and deepen our faith.
By the way,be careful, the “fools” you are be refering to are the Bishops of the church.
There are many on this site tahe seem to think Vatican II can some how be ignored, that the only valid teachings are prior to 1963. If you are one of those then you don’t understand the Church. Events and understanding of the times and the church’s role in the world brought us to Vatican II. A process that built for more than a 100 years and was slowly developed by previous popes including Pius X.
Peace,
FAB
F
FAB
Guest
As per my post, it matters in how we understand, to beable to see the truth in God’s message. They were inspired by God not dictated by God, which means they are the works of human hands who put thier own mark on them.
Peace,
FAB
R
redrosetea
Guest
I’m not sure the level of the Greek language proves anything…Perhaps John couldn’t write and he dictated his words to whomever could read and write…They might have came from the same source and were simply written by different people of varying scholarship
F
FAB
Guest
Perhaps with the Gospel, but revelation was written long after his death.
Peace,
FAB
- Status