• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who wrote the Gospel of John?

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I know that the authors were anonymous as all the gospels are. I am surprised Christians believe in the Bible as the authors contradict each other as well as all the other problems associated with Christianity.

I'm not surprised at all. However modern scholarship has clearly dealt a severe blow to some of the long held certainties of the Christian Faith. Among those beliefs are around who wrote the Gospels and the reliability of the testimony of Matthew and John as eyewitnesses.
 

Robert Henry

New Member
We can't say it was DIRECTLY penned by John. However, there is evidence it was written by someone in the Johanine community. This evidence is based on authorities in the early church attributing to this community as well as style.
 

Moses_UK

Member
Of course, shoot.

1. WHY are the Bible authors unknown and written by anonymous writers who weren’t eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life?

2. WHY were they complied and canonized 100s of years after the death of Jesus?

3. WHY have lots of texts (doctrinal) been omitted and changed in the NIV in comparison to the KJV? (Scribes have been omitting, deleted, and added texts throughout history – and we have proof.

4. WHY are there thousands of Bibles with different texts existing?

5. WHY are all the original Greek manuscripts lost, and what we have today are copies of copies of copies of copies? (remember Jesus didn’t even speak Greek)

6. WHAT was the earliest Christians using (for guidance in doctrine) before the creation of the modern Bible?

7. WHY does the Bible have LOTS of contradictions and not preserved if from God?

8. WHY are there discrepancies of the crucifixion in the canonical gospels?

9. WHY are doctrines of Christianity later additions to Pauline’s religion by people like Augustine/Constantine etc.

10. WHY were the councils set up 300 + years after the death of Jesus to create a new doctrine (religion) which added lots of pagan beliefs and rituals?

11. WHY do Jesus’s teachings in the Bible contradict the modern-day Christian beliefs such as the trinity/keeping the laws etc?

12. WHY did Jesus practice the old Laws, and forced others to do so?

13. Why did Jesus differentiate between himself and God? (John 20:17)

14. WHY is the Trinity NOT explicit in the Bible?

15. WHY didn’t the Jews/old testament confirm the trinity?

16. WHY did the disciples NOT know, or worship the Trinity God Head?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Gospel of John is the fourth of the four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The authorship has been traditionally attributed to the apostle John or the apostle Jesus loved. References in regard to the beloved disciple include:

1/ John 13:23: “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
2/ John 19:26: “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, ‘Woman, here is your son.’
3/ John 20:2: “So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!’
4/ John 21:7: “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’
5/ John 20:20: “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them.”
6/ John 21:24 “disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.”

The references to early Christian works support the early Christian belief as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee being the author:

1/ Irenaeus, writing at about AD 200, says that the Beloved Disciple was John, the disciple of Jesus, and that John originated the Gospel at Ephesus. He writes that when he himself was young, he knew another teacher, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. AD 69–155), who claimed to have been tutored by John.
2/ The church historian Eusebius (c. AD 300) records this John/Polycarp/Irenaeus connection in the same way
3/ Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (AD 189–198), refers to John’s association with the Gospel in his letter to Victor the Bishop of Rome
4/ It is also confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) and the Latin Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200).

Reference: Who Wrote the Gospel of John? | Zondervan Academic

The author of the Gospel of John is anonymous but its been argued that as the Apostle John was prominent in the the early church, but not mentioned in this gospel then it follows he would have written it. The author knew Jewish life well, was intimately acquainted with the geography of Palestine. There appear to be touches that might be based on reflections of an eye witness such as the house of Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (John 12:3). Further early Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian indicated that John was the author.

Reference: Who wrote the Gospel of John?

On the other hand, the authorship is considered by the majority of modern scholars to have arisen from the Johannine community and the authorship of John the Apostle is discounted. Reasons include the low likelihood of an uneducated fisherman being able to produced such a work, the Gospel having been written some 60 - 80 years after Christ's ministry, the likelihood of the text being reacted and written in several stages by different authors.

Personally, I believe we can't know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John but don't believe we can discount the authorship of the Apostle John. The Johannine community authorship may also be correct which John the Apostle contributing. The importance of the question for me lies in better understanding the Bible and the development of Christian thought as a whole. In that spirit, I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others on this forum who have given some reflection to this question.

So who did you believe wrote the Gospel of John and why?

Excellent post Adrian.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
On the other hand, the authorship is considered by the majority of modern scholars to have arisen from the Johannine community and the authorship of John the Apostle is discounted. Reasons include the low likelihood of an uneducated fisherman being able to produced such a work, the Gospel having

Rejecting the possibility of being inspired, without having to study, and formal education, is illogical.
This modern scholars are biased toward Atheism.
If One is neutral, would he still reject this possibility?

The thing is, many think, rejecting the possibility of supernatural powers, is smart, and open mindedness.


"Consider, how can he that faileth in the day of God’s Revelation to attain unto the grace of the “Divine Presence” and to recognize His Manifestation, be justly called learned, though he may have spent aeons in the pursuit of knowledge, and acquired all the limited and material learning of men? It is surely evident that he can in no wise be regarded as possessed of true knowledge. Whereas, the most unlettered of all men, if he be honored with this supreme distinction, he verily is accounted as one of those divinely learned men whose knowledge is of God; for such a man hath attained the acme of knowledge, and hath reached the furthermost summit of learning.
This station is also one of the signs of the Day of Revelation; even as it is said: “The abased amongst you, He shall exalt; and they that are exalted, He shall abase.” And likewise, He hath revealed in the Qur’án: “And We desire to show favor to those who were brought low in the land, and to make them spiritual leaders among men, and to make of them Our heirs.”110 "

Baha'u'llah, Book of Iqan.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Gospel of John is the fourth of the four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The authorship has been traditionally attributed to the apostle John or the apostle Jesus loved. References in regard to the beloved disciple include:

1/ John 13:23: “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
2/ John 19:26: “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, ‘Woman, here is your son.’
3/ John 20:2: “So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!’
4/ John 21:7: “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’
5/ John 20:20: “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them.”
6/ John 21:24 “disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.”

The references to early Christian works support the early Christian belief as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee being the author:

1/ Irenaeus, writing at about AD 200, says that the Beloved Disciple was John, the disciple of Jesus, and that John originated the Gospel at Ephesus. He writes that when he himself was young, he knew another teacher, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. AD 69–155), who claimed to have been tutored by John.
2/ The church historian Eusebius (c. AD 300) records this John/Polycarp/Irenaeus connection in the same way
3/ Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (AD 189–198), refers to John’s association with the Gospel in his letter to Victor the Bishop of Rome
4/ It is also confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) and the Latin Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200).

Reference: Who Wrote the Gospel of John? | Zondervan Academic

The author of the Gospel of John is anonymous but its been argued that as the Apostle John was prominent in the the early church, but not mentioned in this gospel then it follows he would have written it. The author knew Jewish life well, was intimately acquainted with the geography of Palestine. There appear to be touches that might be based on reflections of an eye witness such as the house of Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (John 12:3). Further early Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian indicated that John was the author.

Reference: Who wrote the Gospel of John?

On the other hand, the authorship is considered by the majority of modern scholars to have arisen from the Johannine community and the authorship of John the Apostle is discounted. Reasons include the low likelihood of an uneducated fisherman being able to produced such a work, the Gospel having been written some 60 - 80 years after Christ's ministry, the likelihood of the text being reacted and written in several stages by different authors.

Personally, I believe we can't know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John but don't believe we can discount the authorship of the Apostle John. The Johannine community authorship may also be correct which John the Apostle contributing. The importance of the question for me lies in better understanding the Bible and the development of Christian thought as a whole. In that spirit, I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others on this forum who have given some reflection to this question.

So who did you believe wrote the Gospel of John and why?

Bottomline is, in your post you have no evidence that John was written by John. But you state that "you cannot say no".

Its like saying "there is no evidence Adrian wrote John, but you cannot say no as well".

You can replace the name Adrian with any name you want. Think about it.

This is a good post. But you have ignored to analyse where in the world the name John came into the picture in the first place. Why are you talking about John at all? The reason is the book you are speaking about, which is evidently written by several people is called John.

The foundation of your post comes with the premise that the book is called John. But you have not analysed, who named it John. Was it the author, or was it someone else? The book was not called John by the author, and someone else named it John. Thus, what one must think is, if you go to the original and think of this book that does not have the John name attributed to it, You will never think of a John.

Think of your third party church fathers. Not a single person is a direct witness, while the only person you could state close to someone called John, has no background foundation that it is a man called John who wrote the Gospel according to John.

There is no internal evidence, and the external evidence is not related.

This Gospel refers to this so called "Beloved Disciple". No reference to him being himself, or that his name was "John".

Anyway, there were other books as well that were just given a name after the book was written, by someone else. As an example, there was a book called against all heresies. This book is generally attributed to Tertullian and even was named under his name. But, it is a very well known anonymous book, just like the Gospel of John. People associated tertulian to this book because Tertullian wa known as a person with a vengeance against Heresies. Thus, it was an assumption. But the Gospel of John is worse than that. No one knows which John it was named after. You have to assume from the foundation of the whole thing. Every single thing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. Every single thing is a post publication assumption based on an assumption wher assumptions go back in history, but the final concocter is not willing to go back to "where this chain assumptions started".

It will be an interesting analysis.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Bottomline is, in your post you have no evidence that John was written by John. But you state that "you cannot say no".

Its like saying "there is no evidence Adrian wrote John, but you cannot say no as well".

You can replace the name Adrian with any name you want. Think about it.

This is a good post. But you have ignored to analyse where in the world the name John came into the picture in the first place. Why are you talking about John at all? The reason is the book you are speaking about, which is evidently written by several people is called John.

The foundation of your post comes with the premise that the book is called John. But you have not analysed, who named it John. Was it the author, or was it someone else? The book was not called John by the author, and someone else named it John. Thus, what one must think is, if you go to the original and think of this book that does not have the John name attributed to it, You will never think of a John.

Think of your third party church fathers. Not a single person is a direct witness, while the only person you could state close to someone called John, has no background foundation that it is a man called John who wrote the Gospel according to John.

There is no internal evidence, and the external evidence is not related.

This Gospel refers to this so called "Beloved Disciple". No reference to him being himself, or that his name was "John".

Anyway, there were other books as well that were just given a name after the book was written, by someone else. As an example, there was a book called against all heresies. This book is generally attributed to Tertullian and even was named under his name. But, it is a very well known anonymous book, just like the Gospel of John. People associated tertulian to this book because Tertullian wa known as a person with a vengeance against Heresies. Thus, it was an assumption. But the Gospel of John is worse than that. No one knows which John it was named after. You have to assume from the foundation of the whole thing. Every single thing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. Every single thing is a post publication assumption based on an assumption wher assumptions go back in history, but the final concocter is not willing to go back to "where this chain assumptions started".

It will be an interesting analysis.

Well I'm certain we discount you or I as being authors of the Gospel of John. Certainly those who have contributed to date lean towards discounting the Apostle John as being the author as you do. Instead of responding yesterday I spent time reading and considering the key factors further. It's a great opportunity to learn about the history of how the NT Canon was agreed on. Thanks for dropping by and being the instigator for me starting the thread in the first place.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Bottomline is, in your post you have no evidence that John was written by John. But you state that "you cannot say no".

Its like saying "there is no evidence Adrian wrote John, but you cannot say no as well".

You can replace the name Adrian with any name you want. Think about it.

This is a good post. But you have ignored to analyse where in the world the name John came into the picture in the first place. Why are you talking about John at all? The reason is the book you are speaking about, which is evidently written by several people is called John.

The foundation of your post comes with the premise that the book is called John. But you have not analysed, who named it John. Was it the author, or was it someone else? The book was not called John by the author, and someone else named it John. Thus, what one must think is, if you go to the original and think of this book that does not have the John name attributed to it, You will never think of a John.

Think of your third party church fathers. Not a single person is a direct witness, while the only person you could state close to someone called John, has no background foundation that it is a man called John who wrote the Gospel according to John.

There is no internal evidence, and the external evidence is not related.

This Gospel refers to this so called "Beloved Disciple". No reference to him being himself, or that his name was "John".

Anyway, there were other books as well that were just given a name after the book was written, by someone else. As an example, there was a book called against all heresies. This book is generally attributed to Tertullian and even was named under his name. But, it is a very well known anonymous book, just like the Gospel of John. People associated tertulian to this book because Tertullian wa known as a person with a vengeance against Heresies. Thus, it was an assumption. But the Gospel of John is worse than that. No one knows which John it was named after. You have to assume from the foundation of the whole thing. Every single thing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. Every single thing is a post publication assumption based on an assumption wher assumptions go back in history, but the final concocter is not willing to go back to "where this chain assumptions started".

It will be an interesting analysis.
I would consider if there are clues who was the Author.
But there are those whose intention or motivation is to show the Gospels are inventions or fabricated. Thus, they feel it is in their favour to conclude the author of Gospels are unknown, or anonymous, thinking in this way, they have weakened the legitimacy of the Bible, and refuted its Validity. I am not saying you are one of them though. :cool::D
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Rejecting the possibility of being inspired, without having to study, and formal education, is illogical.
This modern scholars are biased toward Atheism.
If One is neutral, would he still reject this possibility?

The thing is, many think, rejecting the possibility of supernatural powers, is smart, and open mindedness.


"Consider, how can he that faileth in the day of God’s Revelation to attain unto the grace of the “Divine Presence” and to recognize His Manifestation, be justly called learned, though he may have spent aeons in the pursuit of knowledge, and acquired all the limited and material learning of men? It is surely evident that he can in no wise be regarded as possessed of true knowledge. Whereas, the most unlettered of all men, if he be honored with this supreme distinction, he verily is accounted as one of those divinely learned men whose knowledge is of God; for such a man hath attained the acme of knowledge, and hath reached the furthermost summit of learning.
This station is also one of the signs of the Day of Revelation; even as it is said: “The abased amongst you, He shall exalt; and they that are exalted, He shall abase.” And likewise, He hath revealed in the Qur’án: “And We desire to show favor to those who were brought low in the land, and to make them spiritual leaders among men, and to make of them Our heirs.”110 "

Baha'u'llah, Book of Iqan.

There is no doubt for me about the power of the Revelation of God whether through Jesus, Muhammad or Baha'u'llah to have enormous influence on the hearts and minds. Although John was considered an uneducated fisherman, he had clearly changed through his staunch faith in Christ. It is written in Acts of the Apostles 4:13-20

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.
But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
When i come across academic, historical and historiographic discussions about the Bible, both old and new Testaments, it very hard to dismiss some of the arguments made for the various cultural influences on the text. I can see how such studies would provide fuel to those who want to dismiss the Bible as being just a collection of stories without any relevance.

For me this ads to the magic, if the Bible was subject to so many influences over the centuries and still remained consistent with itself and coherent in its teachings, this shows even more the Divine hand at work.

I don't have an opinion on who wrote the Gospel of John, but i hope this post would not be considered a deviation from the spirit of the question...

Hi @Poarta and welcome to RF. Good to have your contribution to this thread.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
@adrian009 From my last post, you can probably deduce that I regard the ecclesiastical tradition in the late second century - beginning with St. Irenaeus of Lyons circa. 180 CE - to have fundamentally erred in its attribution of the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John.

Thanks for dropping by @Vouthon and for your thorough analysis of the authorship. It is certainly a bold call to say Irenaeus got it wrong and to contradict your own Church. You are one of three Catholics to have contributed to this thread to be saying the same thing. What is missing from this thread are the voices of conservative Christians who would advocate for John the Apostle being the author. I was reviewing the Catholic encyclopedia in regards this question:

If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.11.9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820) were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted Bretschneider's views and the members of the Tübingen School, in the wake of Ferdinand Christian Baur, denied the authenticity of this Gospel, the majority of the critics outside the Catholic Church have denied that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the admission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the fact that John has too clearly and emphatically made the true Divinity of the Redeemer, in the strict metaphysical sense, the centre of his narrative. However, even Harnack has had to admit that, though denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has sought in vain for any satisfactory solution of the Johannine problem: "Again and again have I attempted to solve the problem with various possible theories, but they led me into still greater difficulties, and even developed into contradictions." ("Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.", I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.)

A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the reader to form an independent judgment.

Direct historical proof
If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles.

The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earliest of the extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same indications of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend back in their earliest forms to the second century.

The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees with that of the above mentioned sources. St. Dionysius of Alexandria (264-5), it is true, sought for a different author for the Apocalypse, owing to the special difficulties which were being then urged by the Millennarianists in Egypt; but he always took for granted as an undoubted fact that the Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Equally clear is the testimony of Origen (d. 254). He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel (Eusebius, Church History VI.25.6), and at least a great portion of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, in which he everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of the work has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215-6), relates as "the tradition of the old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7).

Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. The native country of Irenaeus (Asia Minor) and the scene of his subsequent ministry (Gaul) render him a witness of the Faith in both the Eastern and the Western Church. He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.


We find that the same conviction concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is expressed at greater length in the Roman Church, about 170, by the writer of the Muratorian Fragment (lines 9-34). Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (before 181) also cites the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John (Ad Autolycum, II, xxii). Finally, according to the testimony of a Vatican manuscript (Codex Regin Sueci seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.

It is scarcely necessary to repeat that, in the passages referred to, Papias and the other ancient writers have in mind but one John, namely the Apostle and Evangelist, and not some other Presbyter John, to be distinguished from the Apostle. (See SAINT JOHN THE EVANGELIST.)


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint John

I'm curious to know how far Catholics can stray from the teachings of their church and publically make statements that contradict their core teachings. I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on why you believe the church as got it so wrong on such a critical issue concerning the origins of one of the most important books within New testament Canon? Its official position appears at odds with modern biblical scholarship. Thanks for that.:)
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for dropping by @Vouthon and for your thorough analysis of the authorship. It is certainly a bold call to say Irenaeus got it wrong and to contradict your own Church. You are one of three Catholics to have contributed to this thread to be saying the same thing. What is missing from this thread are the voices of conservative Christians who would advocate for John the Apostle being the author. I was reviewing the Catholic encyclopedia in regards this question:

Hi Adrian,

I very much appreciate your questions, which are good'uns as ever! :)

Agreed, it is bold of me to set myself against two thousand years of 'assumptions' about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel arising from the witness of one of the most important early church fathers, the great second century heresiologist St. Irenaeus.

However, it's not 'heretical' of me to do so either in a Catholic theological context. Daring, yes. Bold, yes. But not heretical.

The great Catholic mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328) is famous for having said: "Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep the truth and let God go". That is my perspective as well - adherence to truth above all and pursuing the trail wherever it leads, even if doing so means one must overturn venerable 'assumptions'.

As the early church father Lactantius explained in his Divine Institutes:


CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Institutes, Book II (Lactantius)


It is therefore right, especially in a matter on which the whole plan of life turns, that every one should place confidence in himself, and use his own judgment and individual capacity for the investigation and weighing of the truth, rather than through confidence in others to be deceived by their errors, as though he himself were without understanding.

God has given wisdom to all alike, that they might be able both to investigate things which they have not heard, and to weigh things which they have heard.

Nor, because our ancestors preceded us in time did they also outstrip us in wisdom; for if this is given equally to all, we cannot be anticipated in it by those who precede us. It is incapable of diminution, as the light and brilliancy of the sun; because, as the sun is the light of the eyes, so is wisdom the light of man’s heart.

Wherefore, since wisdom — that is, the inquiry after truth — is natural to all, they deprive themselves of wisdom, who without any judgment approve of the discoveries of their ancestors, and like sheep are led by others...


The Catholic Encyclopedia is a very old American apologetical reference-point for the faith compiled in 1912:


Catholic Encyclopedia - Wikipedia



The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church[1] (also referred to as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia and the Original Catholic Encyclopedia)[2] is an English-language encyclopedia published in the United States and designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church. The first volume appeared in March 1907 and the last three volumes appeared in 1912


It's certainly useful to consider how an earlier generation of Catholic scholars understood things and there is a great resource of knowledge in that old database, but it must be cited with care and in the recognition that its conclusions are lacking the insights of modern scholarship - not to mention, that it was published many decades before the Second Vatican Council in 1962-1965 and so is representative of pre-conciliar stances. Vatican II was the most recent ecumenical council (21st since Nicaea in 325 A.D) and as you know, its spirit defines Catholicism as understood and practised today, just like Nicaea did in the fourth century.

(continued...)
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
You asked:

I'm curious to know how far Catholics can stray from the teachings of their church and publically make statements that contradict their core teachings. I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on why you believe the church as got it so wrong on such a critical issue concerning the origins of one of the most important books within New testament Canon?


Answering this adequately requires me to "get theological" - you have flipped the switch Adrian and must now suffer one of my infamously monotonous soliloquies :D

In disputing Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, I am not denying something de fide (a dogmatic truth of the deposit of faith, inherited from the Sacred Apostolic Tradition of the Church, such as the doctrine of Jesus's incarnation, Sunday being the 'Lord's Day' or the teaching that the one God is a Trinity).

That the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel is not a 'teaching' of my church per se - it's a customary 'tradition', a hallowed and very venerable and very ancient and pious 'opinion' that must be treated with due respect, but not necessarily slavishly adhered to if it stands convicted for lack of evidence (or indeed, goes against available evidence).

Catholics distinguish between (bigT) "Tradition" and (smallt) "traditions".

The first category, 'Tradition' refers to the following, defined on April 8 1546 by the Council of Trent in its Fourth Session:


~The Council of Trent - Session 4~


“. . . The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten Traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said Traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.”



And again at the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum in 1965:


Dei verbum


8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This Tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down...For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living Tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same Tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son...

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end...

10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.


Sacred Tradition is equal in status to Sacred Scripture, the Bible. It is the oral Word of God, witnessed to by the Church Fathers and made alive in the constant teaching of the universal church, and through her liturgy.

The second category of 'traditions' in a lesser and secondary sense, refers to this:


Catholic Tradition


We often write Tradition, with a capital ‘T’, to mean Sacred Tradition. This Catholic Tradition is different from those traditions (small ‘t’) that are merely customs, and which are not part of Divine Revelation


Now, where does the "authorship" of the Four Gospels fall down? Is it 'category 1' big-T or 'category 2' small-t?

To be part of the Sacred Tradition, an 'unwritten tradition' has to pertain to faith and/or morals - which means that it must be necessary in some sense for salvation. Is the idea that John authored the Fourth Gospel necessary to my salvation? Nope. Does it aid me morally? Nope.

But is the idea that the Fourth Gospel is canonical and inspired by God necessary for my salvation? Of course! This is de fide, the foundational premise is that:


Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up. (Dei Verbum, No. 19)

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II clearly asserts:


Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. (No. 11)​


As a Catholic, I may not deny the "divine inspiration" of the four gospels as 'faithfully hand[ing] on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up' and that they "firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided".

They are the Word of God delivered through men (or women!) inspired by the Holy Spirit living in apostolic times, passing on what they learned either directly or through passing down of accounts - whether oral of written - from actual eyewitnesses, which these sacred authors used to compose our canon gospels.

However, the "traditions" regarding their authorship - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - may be wrong. They are just venerable 'small-t' traditions, albeit very ancient and 'hallowed' ones. No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. That's what matters to a Catholic at the end of the day.

But no, I do not believe that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel for the very lengthy reasons I set out earlier in my initial three posts :D
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Well I'm certain we discount you or I as being authors of the Gospel of John. Certainly those who have contributed to date lean towards discounting the Apostle John as being the author as you do. Instead of responding yesterday I spent time reading and considering the key factors further. It's a great opportunity to learn about the history of how the NT Canon was agreed on. Thanks for dropping by and being the instigator for me starting the thread in the first place.

As long as you don't send me anthrax via an email, it is my pleasure brother man. ;)

Yet I think you missed one of my points. I was not talking about discounting, but never having to. I will revisit my post and rewrite it. It is indeed interesting to investigate these matters.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Your source is a coach at a seminary and a minister at a presbyterian church. Lets take one of his statements that you had copy pasted in your OP.

Your statement was as a heading "The references to early Christian works support the early Christian belief as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee being the author:"

1/ Irenaeus, writing at about AD 200, says that the Beloved Disciple was John, the disciple of Jesus, and that John originated the Gospel at Ephesus. He writes that when he himself was young, he knew another teacher, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. AD 69–155), who claimed to have been tutored by John.

Where does Irenaeus say that this John he refers to is the Son of Zebedee! Brother. Nowhere. This is pure conjecture. There two schools of thought in this matter. Some say Irenaeus is referring to John the Son of Zebedee, some say he is referring to the elder. It does not say who this is. Even the Polycarp relationship to John the son of Zebedee is absolute not stated. It just says "John". For it is significant that he presents the story of the encounter between the apostle and Cerinthus a high point of his account of the bishop of Smyrna, as derived from others. A link between Polycarp and John is not assured. Irenaeus was young when he heard Polycarp and may well have taken references to John the elder as references to John the apostle.


2/ The church historian Eusebius (c. AD 300) records this John/Polycarp/Irenaeus connection in the same way

Maybe you should read what Eusebius actually says.

Polycarp.png


3/ Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (AD 189–198), refers to John’s association with the Gospel in his letter to Victor the Bishop of Rome
4/ It is also confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) and the Latin Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200).

This is a huge mistake. The problem is this is interpolation to what is stated. It just says "John" not John the son of Zebedee. This was probably made by those who were not familiar with the tradition in and around Ephesus that distinguished the two Johns.

Do you not see a disconnect between your heading that states "John the son of Zebedee" and the points that say "John"?

I would like to see what you understand from this.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Internal evidence in John suggests that the author seemed to be addressing gnostic notions about Christ. This should place its origins in an era when gnosticism was making inroads to Christianity. I don't think that this was likely in the mid to late 1st century.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
@firedragon:

Totally off topic, but I've read that ...

Six of the seven disciples whom Papias names in his prologue (all except Matthews) are also found in John's Gospel. ... Further, Papias lists their names in precisely the same order in which these characters are introduced in John.

- A Note on Papias's Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel; Jake H. O'Connell; JBL 129, no. 4 (2020)​

O'Connell then argues that "we can conclude with certainty that the odds that this correspondence is not by chance are greater than 99 percent." Any thoughts concerning what if anything this might suggest?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I'm curious to know how far Catholics can stray from the teachings of their church and publically make statements that contradict their core teachings. I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on why you believe the church as got it so wrong on such a critical issue concerning the origins of one of the most important books within New testament Canon? Its official position appears at odds with modern biblical scholarship. Thanks for that.:)

I certainly cannot answer these questions as eloquently as other have, but this is how I understand the issue. Revelation is closed, interpretation is not and continues. There is no contradiction as there are very few biblical verses that have been authoritatively defined by the Church,
Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 that we must be born of water and of the Spirit" means that real ("natural") water must be used for a valid baptism. When Jesus, after instituting the Eucharist, commanded His disciples to "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), he meant to confer priestly ordination.
"Again, the power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:23) authorized them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name. These authoritative interpretations emphasize the biblical origins of sacramental life. (The three other defined texts are John 20:22; Romans 5:12 and James 5:14).
Its not a matter of the Church 'getting it wrong' but that the Church through the centuries always in renewal especially in the interpretation of Scripture, beginning with the modern biblical renewal around 1893, when Pope Leo XIII and Providentissimus Deus (On the Study of Holy Scripture), 1893.

One of the most consequential to critical biblical scholarship was Paul VI renewal of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the documents it produced presenting the Catholic interpretation of Scripture;

'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church'
Pope John Paul II noted the reason for this in accepting The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: "Catholic exegesis does not have its own exclusive method of interpretation, but starting with the historico-critical basis freed from its philosophical presuppositions or those contrary to the truth of our faith, it makes the most of all the current methods by seeking in each of them the ‘seeds of the Word.'"







 
Top