Why is John's gospel so different from the other Gospels?

[razredge]

If John was designed to be a theological treatise,

That is not what I said - John’s Gospel still contains historical information about Jesus - it is just less concerned (compared with the Synoptics) in presenting a purely historical account of Jesus and instead presents a spiritual and theological account that stresses the divinity of Christ.

then why bother to invent characters like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Lazarus?

Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in all four Gospels. Nicodemus could possibly be a Nicodemus ben Gurion, a rich Pharisee contemporary of Jesus mentioned in the Jewish Talmud.

The raising of Lazarus is the final and most impressive of the ‘Seven Signs’ performed by Jesus in John’s Gospel - it shows that Jesus even has the power over life and death which could only belong to God.

 

[RobbyS]

Is this the statement to which you are referring?

If you read the comments from the NAB in my first post and if you read the notes about this line and this chapter in John 21 of the NAB, you will see that the Church apparently disagrees with you.

Plus, this appears to be the statement of someone who is attesting to the words or writings of another person, not his own. It is like the person making this statement is giving an oath that says what is written there is an accurate representation of what they were TOLD, by someone else (probably a Christian disciple named John).

As to what I believe in the Gospel of John, I can say that I generally see it the same way the Church does.

I understand that for some people it is problematic if the Gospels were not “written” by one of the first Apostles, since that is what “tradition” teaches. But unfortunately, tradition can be wrong, and the great majority of bible scholars, including Catholic scholars, hold the position that we don’t know who the authors of the Gospels were. Raymond Brown, probably the most respected Catholic Scripture Scholar of the past 50 years says quite plainly, “the view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held by about 95% of contemporary bible scholars.”

So what I say is not my wild, heretical opinion, but is based on the teachings of Catholic Bishops and Catholic scholars. In other words, it is a recognized belief today in the Catholic church.

“You are now leaving the 16th century…welcome to the 21st century.”

Why Father Brown said is,like much Biblical scholarship, hypothetical. Educated guesses. The evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. The names of the authors, the dates of publication are not known. Some scholars suppose, for instance, that “Mark” --the writer of the Gospel did not exist. But the notion of the Gospel as a transcription of a serdom or sermons of Peter --which tradition gives us–is equally plausible. Writing was a professional rather than a personal skill. Much depends on when the author wrote the book, before or after the Destruction of the Temple. Just the heck of it, you might say, Angtlican bishop Robsinson looked at the literature from a different angle and suggested that John could just as well have been the FIRST written, and then redacted, perhaps several times. The “Q” hypothesis is just that. Other ways of solving the Synoptic Question" can be devised. But biblical scholars are like other scholars. in the absence of new evidence, they worry with the old and if someone comes up with a “solution” that seems plausible, they latch onto it. As for the limits of philology, just look at the inconclusive results of the Shakespeare controversies. Many refuse to think that such an otherwise unexceptionsl person as Will Shakespeare couldproduce such magic. But then look at Mozart, who personally seems to have been a ninny.

 

[steve53]

Why Father Brown said is,like much Biblical scholarship, hypothetical… As for the limits of philology, just look at the inconclusive results of the Shakespeare controversies. Many refuse to think that such an otherwise unexceptionsl person as Will Shakespeare could produce such magic. But then look at Mozart, who personally seems to have been a ninny.

A better point using Shakespeare is that no one seriously questioned the authorship of “his” plays until two centuries after his death. Of course by that time any solid evidence one way or the other was long gone.
This translates to many other “ancient” mysteries that cable television likes to dwell on, and emboldens people to question the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 or thereabouts.

 

[RobbyS]

A better point using Shakespeare is that no one seriously questioned the authorship of “his” plays until two centuries after his death. Of course by that time any solid evidence one way or the other was long gone.
This translates to many other “ancient” mysteries that cable television likes to dwell on, and emboldens people to question the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 or thereabouts.

To extend your thought, people forget how many writings Jerome and others had at their disposal in the 4th Century that are now lost to us, or even hidden from him. Minor works especially have vanished with the ages. Modern skeptics like to talk about those heretical works that were suppressed, for getting that in the course of things, many a valuable resource was lost just because no one chose to have them recopied. By accident of history even major works, like the dialogues of Aristotle were lost. BAL, almost all we know about his thought comes from the copybooks of his disciples.

 

[XinMinny]

Mark was written the Roman audience. Mark was the first Gospel to be written.

Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew contains much of what was in Mark.

Luke was written for a Greek audience.

And John is so different because it was written for Christians. It is like a love letter to believers. It is the most theologically developed of the four Gospels. John 6 is a clear explanation of the eucharist.

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures has this:

The Evangelist himself declares his aim, ‘These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name’, 20:31. He wrote, not so much to convert as to confirm the belief of those who already believed ‘that you may keep believing’ (πιστεύοντες ). The Gospel was mainly meant for Christians. These were not Jewish Christians, otherwise it would not have interpreted simple Jewish terms such as Messias and Rabbi. The Jews John has in mind are not readers, but the hostile mass of the Jewish nation who rejected the Messias.

William,
Thanks for this idea. I am curious about your idea that Mark was written to the Roman audience, and Luke to a Greek audience. I have a few questions:

What exactly do you mean by “Roman” or “Greek”? I have typically thought of “Roman” as referring to people in the city of Rome, and “Greek” as citizens of the empire. If that is right, then both would have similar world-views, and a person would write similarly to both classes. So, I am asking you to help me understand your comment.

Also, I would like to add this idea: Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to similar things - miracles that Jesus did, his parables, etc. I have heard it said, and I am comfortable with this idea, that those things would have had real meaning to Jewish audiences.
However, John seems to write differently. His audience must not have had much Jewish traditional background, because he frequently adds little phrases like “the Passover, a feast of the Jews…” If his audience were Jewish, they wouldn’t have needed that help. His emphasis seems to be on ‘deeper’ ideas - the relationship of the Father to the Son, for example, and it seems that those things would have connected with Greek (non-Jewish) audiences.

Has anyone else ever heard it that way?

Thanks

 

[Carlan]

John’s Gospel is thought to be the latest one written as it includes deeper descriptions of Christian doctrine, possibly in an attempt to fend off growing heresies that took greater license with the less-descriptive portions of the other three Gospels.

As far as authorship, remember that the Church traces its line to the Apostles and so there are oral and extra-biblical traditions (such as Paul’s being martyred by Nero) that are not found in Scripture but have survived to this day.

YES. John’s Gospel speaks throughout of the Divinity of Jesus more than any other.
Peace, Carlan

 

[JackQ]

The following is from Eusebius:

“5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

1. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
2. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.” (underline mine)

That John’s is called a “spiritual Gospel” explains, I think, the differences from the other three. It was John’s intention to write something less literal than the others, the better to elucidate certain spiritual truths.

 

[Little_One0307]

The following is from Eusebius:

“5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

1. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
2. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.” (underline mine)

That John’s is called a “spiritual Gospel” explains, I think, the differences from the other three. It was John’s intention to write something less literal than the others, the better to elucidate certain spiritual truths.

Thanks for posting this. I had never read or heard of Eusebius, is he Latin or Eastern? And I am assuming that Clement it Pope Clement right? Sry not to familiar with all the names.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Thank you, Nathan Wagar, along with the others who have vigoriously defended John’s authorship of the fourth Gospel. It is reassuring to have measured voices discussing such delicate issues.

I am often afraid that, with these forums, we give opportunity to folks who use the “gotcha” method of discussion, especially in pointing out possibilities which can be discussed, but in the end must be retired as unfaithful to Catholic tradition and Tradition.

In this case, the value of John’s authorship lies in his direct knowledge of the Living Jesus, and his scholarship in defining many of the issues of the day…some of which have continued to haunt Christianity as a whole, such as Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist.

Thank you for your orthodox approach to the Faith.

 

[JackQ]

Thanks for posting this. I had never read or heard of Eusebius, is he Latin or Eastern? And I am assuming that Clement it Pope Clement right? Sry not to familiar with all the names.

Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine. He wrote in Greek, and was from Caesarea, so I suppose you would call him Eastern, though he wrote long before there was any split in the Church. The reference was not to Pope Clement but to one Clement of Alexandria.

 

[Carlan]

This is an important point.

It’s also important to remember that the primary author of Scripture is God. It sounds trite to say that the Gospel is different because God wanted it that way, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but at its most basic level, this is true.

John’s Gospel is a deep work of theology, one which tells us of the divinity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity and the Eucharistic character of the Church. God used the great theologian John to reveal to us what he wanted us to know, that Jesus is Truth Himself, that the Father will send the “Spirit of Truth” and that Jesus and the Father are one.

God used John’s skills to teach us these things. John is like an expert weaver, using the threads of truth, spirit, life, love and unity to weave a fabric which tells us exactly what God want’s us to know about himself and the Eucharist.

-Tim-

Yes Tim, I think your reference to Razedge and your post says it right, Peace, Carlan

 

[Little_One0307]

Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine. He wrote in Greek, and was from Caesarea, so I suppose you would call him Eastern, though he wrote long before there was any split in the Church. The reference was not to Pope Clement but to one Clement of Alexandria.

Hi,

Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate you taking your time out in answering the question.

God Bless.