• 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
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?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It took me half an hour to compose that OP and that's the best you can do? Grrr....:mad:

Welcome to the club, bro. It gets to me some days, too. If it's any consolation, I was thinking to myself it was a superb OP as I read it. I should have mentioned that.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
My opinion isn't worth a lot, since I'm about as far from being knowledgeable in this area as Trump is from manning up someday, but I think a key issue here is that whoever wrote the Gospel was familiar (but maybe not too familiar) with Neo-Platonic philosophy. Regardless of who we suggest the author is, I think that person needs to be someone it's plausible to think of as familiar with that philosophical school.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
I agree, that we can not know for sure, unless of course God would whispers it in our ears;)

So who did you believe wrote the Gospel of John and why?
This type of question never entered my mind thus far. Probably because I did not meet him, and it's so long ago.

And I agree with you, that this is beyond my "knowledge". And when something is beyond solving, I drop it immediately and never think of it again. I have plenty of things to solve, that I can actually solve. Me never contemplating on this probably also has to do with the below quote:)

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference"
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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?
I think the Catholic Church had a lot to do with it, and suspect they had a major role in 'piecing' together the gospels making them the likely authors.
 

exchemist

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?
I have always been struck by the amount of fairly developed theology in St John's Gospel, compared to the synoptic gospels. Consider how it opens: "In the beginning was the Word and and Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with Him in the beginning and by Him all things were made and without Him was made nothing that was made." Or something like that, I forget exactly.

This is pretty deep stuff (I love it) and not at all the story of the life of Jesus as told in the synoptic gospels. There are other flashes of theology too, that crop up at intervals.

It seems to me these are the hallmarks of the writings of an educated religious thinker. Whether John the Apostle ever became such a man we can't know for sure, but it seems doubtful to me.
 

Poarta

New 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?




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...
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Excellent OP @adrian009 and great question to mull over as well, even though the "right" answer to your question is almost impossible to firmly ascertain.

"Steve", to be honest, seems as good a hypothesis any any - not least, given the implied homoeroticism of a man reclining intimately on another man's breast at a dinner party (John 13:23-25) :D But vis-a-vis @Sunstone 's earth-shattering revelation of the Fourth Gospel's authorship, I think there's sufficient reason to believe it may actually be more "Eve" than "Steve" (I'll get to that later) ;)

In my third post, I'm willing to offer some educated guessing of my own, based upon the text-critical and scholarly literature relating to the Gospel of John I've poured over down the years.

My first argument in brief:


(1) I am 99.9% certain (and would FALL ON MY SWORD on this one, so high is my degree of certitude) the Apostle John son of Zebedee is not the alleged "eyewitness" posthumously honoured by the Johannine community with the epithet "disciple whom Jesus loved (Ēgapa)".

This anonymous person, of course, is presented by the Fourth Gospel as the original source of testimony upon which later redacted drafts of the complete text were based.

John the son of Zebedee - a Galilean fisherman - does not align whatsoever with the implied description of a Jerusalem-based beloved disciple "eyewitness" and moreover, the Gospel itself does not provide us with any internal evidence to conclude that John Zebedee was especially 'loved' (Ēgapa) by Jesus, so as to warrant this otherwise bizarre identification.



'John' in the synoptic gospels, is a member of the Twelve Apostles grouping, one of the two sons of Zebedee Jesus honours with the sobriquet Boanerges ("Sons of Thunder") and along with his brother James witnessed the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor.

The most glaring anomaly, or red herring, in attributing the base-text of the Fourth Gospel to this John is that none - and I do stress none - of the very particular set of ‘Zebedee brothers’ stories we find in the synoptic tradition feature anywhere in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. the calling of the Zebedees by Jesus, their presence with Jesus when they witnessed the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration scene, and also of the special request for special seats in Jesus’ kingdom when it comes etc.), all of which happen to take place in Galilee, which in the synoptics is fitting for Galilean-originating Jesus traditions telling stories about Galilean fishermen who became disciples of Jesus.

If this were 'John the Apostle's Gospel', I would expect to see clear imprints of his own personal experiences of Jesus from Galilee. However there are none. Instead, the Synoptic tradition seems to show forth more experience taken directly from the thought of John the apostle, than does the Fourth Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel incorporates very little of the Galilean miracle traditions found in the Synoptics, with the obvious exception being the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus’ walk on the water. The Gospel, rather, incorporates numerous visitations of Jesus to Jerusalem in Judea for the celebration of Jewish feasts including Sukkot, Pesach and Hanukah. The narratives and monologues presented in the text are 'built' around these Jewish celebrations, to which and from which 'symbolism' is derived.

We also find many stories otherwise unattested from the synoptics, like the meeting with Nicodemus, the encounter with the Samaritan woman, the healing of the blind man, the healing of the cripple by the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, and the raising of Lazarus in Bethany just outside Jerusalem.

What do all of these scenes have in common? Well, none of them took place in Galilee. D. Moody Smith comments (Johannine Christianity, p. 63): "It is now rather widely agreed that the Fourth Evangelist drew upon a miracle tradition or written source(s) substantially independent of the synoptics, whether or not he had any knowledge of one or more of those gospels". This independent tradition stream was a Judean one.

Not a bit strange for a Galilean fisherman as our 'evangelist'?

The Gospel of John - although in its last 'edition' finalised circa. 90 CE after Mark and Matthew (but not Luke, which is now considered to be likely the last written of the gospels) - was a composite of earlier sources that scholars have identified, for example a "Signs gospel" (dated circa. 50 CE) and a Passion narrative that is thought to perhaps be the most primitive of all the Gospel crucifixion narratives (it has none of the elaborate supernatural content described in the synoptics), potentially originating in the 30s or 40s CE of the first century.

These sources are amongst our earliest Christian sources, alongside Mark and the Q sayings source that likely underlies Matthew and Luke, and although they didn't reach final literary form until 90 CE - they are ancient, as reflected in the fact that John's gospel has remarkably precise topographical descriptions of cites in Jerusalem that were destroyed during the Jewish War in 70 CE when the Second Temple was demolished, such as Solomon's Portico and the Pool of Bethsaida, and only recovered again by modern archaeologists.

The sources for this information pre-date 70 CE and were simply incorporated into the final edited "literary" version of the Gospel of John in 90 CE that has come down to us. And this topographical knowledge tells us that our Beloved Disciple must have lived in Judea and near Jerusalem pre-Temple destruction in 70 CE to be so intimately familiar with the city.

Furthermore, the study of the Qumran literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) has demonstrated that the Fourth Gospel exhibits many parallels with the theology of the Jews who collated and preserved these texts in their library (such as the light/dark dualism in the text).

As one Jewish scholar, Adele Reinhartz, who has written a commentary on the text notes:


John’s Gospel is generally thought to have been completed ca. 85–95 CE. This dating applies to the final version of the Gospel found in the most complete manuscripts of the New Testament, such as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. This final version, however, was the product of a lengthy and complicated history of composition. It is likely that pre-Johannine sources or early versions of the Gospel circulated for some decades before the date of final composition...

The Gospel of John reflects deep and broad knowledge of Jerusalem, Jewish practice, and methods of biblical interpretation. Some references to early first-century Jerusalem topography and landmarks, such as the pool at Beth-zatha near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem (5.2) are supported archaeologically, suggesting direct knowledge of the city and surroundings. The Gospel refers to the Sabbath and Passover as well as to the Feast of Tabernacles (5.1) and Hanukkah (10.22). It explains ritual hand-washing before meals (2.6),


This is especially important when it is considered that this Gospel places great stress on the crucial role of eyewitness testimony (see especially John 19-21). Is it not really strange that these stories would be omitted if John Zebedee was its primary source?

It is equally peculiar that the Zebedees are so briefly mentioned in this Gospel as such (see John 21.2) and John is never equated with the Beloved Disciple even in the appendix in John 21 (cf. vs. 2 and 7-- the Beloved Disciple could certainly be one of the two unnamed disciples mentioned in vs. 2).

In Acts 4:13 we read that when Annas, Caiaphas and the Pharisees “saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They marveled, and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus”. The fact that later church tradition attributed the sophisticated, Qumran-reminiscent theology of the Fourth Gospel to an "unlearned and ignorant" man suggests that they really must have believed in miracles.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
So who did you believe wrote the Gospel of John and why?

It may never be determined, but the theories are interesting and apparently unlimited.
The question, how could John the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman, been so closely connected with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem, language and mentality as we read he is, was there a relation to the high priest (Jn 18:15)?
Some have suggested the priests discharge their ministry on a rotating basis twice a year. After completing the ministry the priest returned to his home and probably a profession to earn his living. We learn from the Gospels that Zebedee employed several day laborers and why his sons could leave home. Accordingly it is possible that Zebedee was a priest. The very meal during which this disciple rested on Jesus' breast took place in a room that in all probability was located in the Essene neighborhood where the Essenes lived and possible that the 'priest' Zebedee lent the upper room to Jesus and the Twelve. According to Jewish custom the host or in his absence 'his firstborn son sat to the right of the guest, his head leaning on the latter's chest'.

And from Eusebius of Caesarea tells of a five volume work of the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, who died around 220. Papias mentions there that he had not known or seen the holy Apostle himself but that he had received the teaching of the faith from people who had been close the the Apostles and speaks of others who had been close to the Apostles and mentions a 'Presbyter John.'
Excerpts from J. Colson ("Johannes") as quoted
from 'Jesus of Nazareth'
After considering the redaction of the Gospel I think the final composition is the work of a Johannine School but does not discount the possibility of preserving an eyewitness account.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I have always been struck by the amount of fairly developed theology in St John's Gospel, compared to the synoptic gospels. Consider how it opens: "In the beginning was the Word and and Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with Him in the beginning and by Him all things were made and without Him was made nothing that was made." Or something like that, I forget exactly.

This is pretty deep stuff (I love it) .....

Hi...... I was reading 1John this morning and the opening verses absolutely seem so like the opening of G-John. How surprised I was to then discover that the letters were originally written in a different language and with different grammatical techniques to G-John.

I am reminded of Fitzgerald's translation of Rubaiyat... It's all down to the translators, I think?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Hi.....
Apostle Luke could help...
I don't have chapter verse of Luke's Acts, but after Peter (with John) carries out his first healing miracle they both get in to a conversation with Temple officials who were amazed at their abilities despite they both being obviously 'ignorant and uneducated' .
There it is..... so there's yet another kind of evidence to show that disciple John never did write G-John.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
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.

St. Irenaeus claimed that St. Polycarp (AD 69 – 155) was a disciple of the Apostle John, to whom Irenaeus attributed the Fourth Gospel.

Is it not rather curious then, to consider, that nowhere in Polycarp's extant writings do we find ANY quotation from or allusions to the Fourth Gospel?


The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Polycarp


By his letter, and by his widespread moral authority, Polycarp combated the Marcionites (from Rome) and frustrated their attempts to establish Churches in Roman Asia. That sect advocated a rejection of the Hebraic Old Testament deity for the New Testament God. He also struggled against the Valentinian communities, esoteric Gnostic groups that claimed religious salvation exclusively through their arcane spiritual knowledge. Polycarp's anti-Gnostic thesis, an exemplary statement of post-apostolic theology, refuted the sectarian argument..

Proportionate to the length of what they wrote, Polycarp has two or three times more quotations and reminiscences from the New Testament that does Ignatius. Of 112 Biblical reminiscences, about 100 are from the New Testament with only a dozen from the Old Testament. Polycarp does not refer to older Christian writings by name, but The Letter to the Philippians has quotations (of approval) from these writings:



We have good reasons for believing in the credence of the early tradition that St. Polycarp had known the actual Apostle John as a child and been taught by him.

But if this is so, then we have to reckon with the fact that Polycarp appeared to have NO awareness of the fourth gospel or if he did, certainly did not rely upon it for his theology.

If he were a disciple of the apostle John and the apostle John authored the Fourth Gospel, why would this be so? We'd have expected him to have been heavily indebted to this gospel. But he wasn't - in fact his opponent, Valentinus, used the fourth gospel routinely as his main source for the teaching of Jesus!

Its another thing that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense in respect of this 'Johannine' authorship attribution.

However, I have a two-pronged theory as to why this 'mistaken attribution' might have happened - and I do not fault St. Irenaeus for having reached the conclusion that he did in respect of Johannine authorship, even though I do think he was wrong (just for perfectly understandable reasons).

First prong:

The Johannine prologue's verses 6-8 and 15 summarize the role and ministry of John the Baptist as a witness to the “light” of Christ. He is the first human 'character' we are introduced to by name in the text, prior to the incarnation of the Word.

If the Fourth Gospel had been attributed to the Apostle John from the very beginning of its textual transmission chain, would it not have been oddly confusing for a text "according to John" (a different John from the Baptist) beginning with another John as its first character? I cannot conceive that such a text would have been 'circulated' with that "marketing pitch" to new readers unfamiliar with the story and characters other than, perhaps, Jesus himself. It is logically incomprehensible for any author, to have deliberately intended his text to begin in so abstrusely confusing a manner for new readers.

In the next scene, the first chapter proper following the prologue, John the Baptist again takes centre-stage:


19 This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”


When the first copies of John were being circulated from its base-text by various scribes in the early second century, the early church communities using this gospel in worship would've attached the name "John" to the text pretty quickly as a short-hand because of the prominence of John the Baptist.

But I do not believe that the 'community' or the original author called it "the Gospel of John". This appellation arose, most likely, in the course of its widespread second century circulation.

Second prong:

We learn from Eusebius and St. Jerome that the Johannine community may have been led after the death of the original Evangelist by a certain presbyter John, to whom another set of ecclesiastical traditions stemming from the apostolic father Papias (60 - 130 CE) may have attributed the Epistles of John (1, 2 and 3), which are texts distinct from the gospel in grammar and literary style despite sharing its 'theology' (and obviously being derivative from the same "school of thought").

St. Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) tells us:


The other two [Epistles] of which the first is "The elder to the elect lady and her children" and the other "The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth," are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day.


I think it's quite easy to understand why this Fourth Gospel - which in and of itself bears none of the hallmarks of having been authored or dependant upon traditions derived from a Galilean fisherman - was 'confusedly' attributed in the late second century to the Apostle John: the text literally introduces a 'John' as its first character and primitive ecclesiastical memories of the 'community' having been led by a presbyter John after the death of the anonymous Evangelist were passed down along with its circulation and textual transmission by scribal copyists.

Moreover, we know from the "Alogi controversy" that the canonicality of John was seriously questioned by some second century proto-orthodox churchmen, who claimed that the gospel was authored by the heretic Cerinthus (an early mid-first century Jewish chiliast with proto-gnostic overtones):


Alogi - Wikipedia


The Alogi or Alogoi (ἄλογοι, also called "Alogians") were a group of heterodox Christians in Asia Minor that flourished c. 200 CE, and taught that the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) were not the work of the Apostle, but his adversary Cerinthus. What we know of them is derived from their doctrinal opponents, whose literature is extant, particularly St. Epiphanius of Salamis. It was Epiphanius who coined the name "Alogi" as a word play suggesting that they were both illogical (anti-logikos) and they were against the Christian doctrine of the Logos.[1] While Epiphanius does not specifically indicate the name of its founder, Dionysius Bar-Salibi, citing a lost work of Hippolytus (Capita Adversus Caium), writes in his commentary on the Apocalypse,

Hippolytus the Roman says: A man appeared, named Caius, saying that the Gospel is not by John, nor the Apocalypse but that it is by Cerinthus the heretic.[2][3]

According to fourth century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Caius was a churchman of Rome who wrote during the time of Pope Zephyrinus, and had published a disputation with Proclus, a Montanist leader in Rome.[4]


What also wouldn't have helped those pushing for the canonical status of the Fourth Gospel, is that the earliest exegetical commentary of the text was penned by the Valentinian Gnostic theologian Heracleon around 170 CE:


Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John


The first known Gospel commentary was a commentary on the Gospel of John written around 170 AD. It was authored by a prominent Gnostic Christian and disciple of Valentinus, Heracleon. Heracleon was one of the most important Biblical exegetes of his day. His writings were carefully read by orthodox theologians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria.


The Fourth Gospel proved foundational to second century gnostic churches. For the proto-orthodox, like St. Irenaeus, who both loved the text and believed it to be a genuine witness to the truth of the gospel - this was a hurdle that they had to overcome.

To be accepted in the canon against the claims of the Alogi, as St. Irenaeus ultimately secured it in 180 CE with his defence of a "fourfold gospel" with John as the final witness, this gospel desperately needed apostolic pedigree and the name of an apostle of some major 'chops' attached to it to avoid accusations of heresy.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
@adrian009 As to the identity of the actual Beloved Disciple, we can only speculate.

Yet our 'speculation' can at least be educated and plausible: guided by the intra-textual hints and clues given in the text itself (heavily redacted and edited though it may, in fact, be - as I'm going to demonstrate to you. The gospel evidently had a long composition history and 'our' final version evidences signs of unevenness from the hands of editors in a number of passages), rather than suggesting that the gospel originates from the memories of an unlettered Galilean fisherman.

To arrive at a 'decent' educated guess, we also need to have a really good grasp of the 'theology' of the Fourth Gospel and its literary sources of inspiration. There are some relatively close parallels to the Fourth Gospel's 'high messianology' in certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, such as (but not limited to): (1) the 'Self-Glorification Hymn' (4Q491) which scholars have dated to the late Hasmonean period (first century BCE) (2) the 'Daniel Apochryphon' (4Q246) dated circa. 100 BCE and (3) the 'Melchizedek Scroll' (11Q13) which has been dated to the late second century BCE.

Our author was evidently very well-versed in the mystical literature of Second Temple Judaism, in addition to the Oral Torah traditions of the Pharisees, the Hebrew Bible, the Temple cult and Greek philosophy.

As the Jewish scholar I cited in my first post notes, the text exhibits "abundant use of the Hebrew Bible through direct quotations and allusions", "deep and broad knowledge of Jewish practice and methods of biblical interpretation", "numerous parallels to other Jewish sources from the second temple (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) and rabbinic periods" and "employs argument similar to later rabbinic midrashic traditions".

In addition, much of the Fourth Gospel is redolent with "nuptial mysticism" alluding to Jacob's well from Genesis and the courtship of his wives Rebekah and Leah, Isaiah's description of YHWH as Israel's 'husband' through the covenant, the Psalms and Song of Songs in the Tanakh: a recurring motif or metaphor portraying Jesus as the 'Bridegroom-messiah' of the Jews, Samaritans and New Covenant community. In the gospel, three (or two) women are actually cast as symbolic 'brides' of Jesus in the gospel: the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four, Mary of Bethany in chapter 12 and Mary Magdalene in chapter 20. Each one is a representative of God's new 'covenantal' relationship with a different group which the respective woman 'represents'.

So, we have here a very sophisticated and erudite Second Temple-era Judean Jewish scribe with a very developed 'nuptial mystical' understanding of scripture, as our real "evangelist" - an eyewitness, so the final edited text claims, to the passion of Jesus in particular (scholars such as Gerd Theissen and Paula Fredriksen now concur, actually, that the Johannine passion account is likely older than Mark's in its pre-gospel form).

That's a tall-order in finding a candidate so qualified to produce such a complex, rich and symbolically-layered literary masterpiece.

But let's consider the 'pointers' in the text of the gospel itself as our guide. My Checklist of Requirements for the Beloved Disciple of Jesus:


  • The Beloved Disciple is most probably of an upper class, and likely priestly family of Jerusalemite extraction: nothing else can really explain the highly educated theology, the preoccupation with the Second Temple cultus and its festivals (which are described in incredibly accurate detail) and the fact that the Beloved Disciple was known to the high priest.
  • The Beloved Disciple is evidently Judean, not Galilean (for the reasons detailed above, I'm not covering that again)
  • The Beloved Disciple is likely not one of the Twelve Apostles: In John's gospel we find no calling of the Twelve Apostles, as in the Synoptic Markan tradition. 'The Twelve' as an inner group of elite disciples did not matter much to our Evangelist (implying that he or she wasn't part of this 'society', as befits a Judean rather than a Galilean disciple). Moreover, as the scholar Michael J. Kok notes: "The constituency of 'the Twelve' (hoi dodeka) is never fully defined in the rare allusions to them in John 6:67, 70, 71 and 20:24 and the Fourth Gospel does not affirm that there no other participants in the Last Supper [than the Twelve]. Even in the Synoptic gospels, Jesus and his Galilean entourage presumably required someone in Jerusalem to make his or her accommodations available to them". (p.15).
  • The Beloved Disciple probably hosted the Last Supper, because he was a high-class Jerusalemite: Given his 'pride of place' next to Jesus and reclining on his bosom at the Last Supper, it can be deduced that the Judean beloved disciple was likely the host of the meal (i.e. it was being held in his or her house).
  • The Beloved Disciple was personally known by the High Priest Caiaphas: this is confirmed both in the text itself, when the anonymous eyewitness surfaces in John 18:15 as the one with the requisite "connections" in high places in Jerusalem to get the Galilean fisherman Peter access to the courtyard where Jesus is being put on trial for blasphemy: "Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, 16 but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in".
  • The early church fathers also understood this verse to be a coded reference by the author to the eyewitnessing-beloved disciple, as we can see from the church father St. Jerome (347 – 420) who tried to 'force' the humble fisherman John into fitting this role to keep with the spurious tradition in respect of his authorship, with the almost laughable attempt to cast John as being of "noble birth":
JEROME, Letters | Loeb Classical Library

"Those unbelievers who read me may perhaps smile to find me lingering over the praises of weak women.

But if they will recall how holy women attended Our Lord and Saviour and ministered to Him of their substance, and how the three Marys stood before the cross, and particularly how Mary Magdalene - called 'of the tower’ because of her earnestness and ardent faith - was privileged to see the rising Christ first even before the apostles, they will convict themselves of pride rather than me of folly, who judge of virtue not by the sex but by the mind.

Therefore it was that Jesus loved the evangelist John most of all; for he was of noble birth and known to the high priest, but he feared the Jews’ plottings so little that he brought Peter into the priest’s palace, and was the only apostle who stood before the cross and took the Saviour’s mother to his own home
."


  • The Beloved Disciple was most likely a member of the Bethany Family from Judea: described in John chapters 11-12. Within the text of the Fourth Gospel, the Greek word Ēgapa - which is derived from the root agape - is the term used to describe the relationship between Jesus and this anonymous Beloved Disciple (i.e. "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved (Ēgapa, ἠγάπα)" (John 13:23)).

    This word is only ever used once in reference to other identifiable dramatis personae in the text, the verse in question being John 11:5: "Now Jesus loved (Ēgapa, ἠγάπα) Martha, and her sister Mary and Lazarus."

    On the face of it, these are our best candidates for the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'. They are expressly described as having been egapa (loved) by Jesus using that very same word (the only other characters so described).

  • The Beloved Disciple was first a follower of John the Baptist: hence the prominence accorded to John in the prologue and early chapters.

  • (lastly and this will be my most "controversial point") The Beloved Disciple was fond of "nuptial mysticism" and used literary motifs from courtship scenes between biblical patriarchs and betrothed women at wells in Genesis, the erotic Song of Songs in the Tanakh and Graeco-Roman romance novels to depict Jesus's relationships with two/three women (the Samaritan woman and Mary of Bethany / Mary Magdalene) in his/her attempt to portray Jesus as the "Bridegroom Messiah" of the New Covenant: a number of scholars have drawn attention to the strong bridal mysticism in the text of the Fourth Gospel, here I cite Jocelyn McWhirter and Fehribach in the 2008 study, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel:

"The “literary conventions of the day” include character types, type-scenes, and techniques of characterization. 62 These can be found first of all in the Hebrew Bible, “one of the most important literary resources for understanding the Fourth Gospel” and the source for several allusions.63 Four allusions are confirmed: Jer. 33:10–11 in John 3:29, Gen. 29:1–20 in John 4:4– 42, Song 1:12 in John 12:3, and Song 3:1– 4 in John 20:1–18.

Important background literature also includes Hellenistic-Jewish writings such as the books of Judith and Susanna, as well as popular Greco-Roman romance novels like Xenophon’s An Ephesian Tale and Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe.

John uses these literary and cultural conventions to portray Jesus as the messianic bridegroom. The mother of Jesus acts as the “mother of an important son”. The Samaritan woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene are all depicted as his betrothed or bride.

An allusion to Song 1:12 in John 12:3 likens Mary of Bethany to the Song’s bride, conventionally understood as the people of God.68 An allusion to Song 3:1– 4 in John 20:1–18 allows Mary Magdalene to assume the conventional role of the woman in search of her dead lover’s body
." (p.80)​
 
Last edited:

Moses_UK

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?


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.
 

Moses_UK

Member
@adrian009 As to the identity of the actual Beloved Disciple, we can only speculate.

Yet our 'speculation' can at least be educated and plausible: guided by the intra-textual hints and clues given in the text itself (heavily redacted and edited though it may, in fact, be - as I'm going to demonstrate to you. The gospel evidently had a long composition history and 'our' final version evidences signs of unevenness from the hands of editors in a number of passages), rather than suggesting that the gospel originates from the memories of an unlettered Galilean fisherman.

To arrive at a 'decent' educated guess, we also need to have a really good grasp of the 'theology' of the Fourth Gospel and its literary sources of inspiration. There are some relatively close parallels to the Fourth Gospel's 'high messianology' in certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, such as (but not limited to): (1) the 'Self-Glorification Hymn' (4Q491) which scholars have dated to the late Hasmonean period (first century BCE) (2) the 'Daniel Apochryphon' (4Q246) dated circa. 100 BCE and (3) the 'Melchizedek Scroll' (11Q13) which has been dated to the late second century BCE.

Our author was evidently very well-versed in the mystical literature of Second Temple Judaism, in addition to the Oral Torah traditions of the Pharisees, the Hebrew Bible, the Temple cult and Greek philosophy.

As the Jewish scholar I cited in my first post notes, the text exhibits "abundant use of the Hebrew Bible through direct quotations and allusions", "deep and broad knowledge of Jewish practice and methods of biblical interpretation", "numerous parallels to other Jewish sources from the second temple (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) and rabbinic periods" and "employs argument similar to later rabbinic midrashic traditions".

In addition, much of the Fourth Gospel is redolent with "nuptial mysticism" alluding to Jacob's well from Genesis and the courtship of his wives Rebekah and Leah, Isaiah's description of YHWH as Israel's 'husband' through the covenant, the Psalms and Song of Songs in the Tanakh: a recurring motif or metaphor portraying Jesus as the 'Bridegroom-messiah' of the Jews, Samaritans and New Covenant community. In the gospel, three (or two) women are actually cast as symbolic 'brides' of Jesus in the gospel: the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four, Mary of Bethany in chapter 12 and Mary Magdalene in chapter 20. Each one is a representative of God's new 'covenantal' relationship with a different group which the respective woman 'represents'.

So, we have here a very sophisticated and erudite Second Temple-era Judean Jewish scribe with a very developed 'nuptial mystical' understanding of scripture, as our real "evangelist" - an eyewitness, so the final edited text claims, to the passion of Jesus in particular (scholars such as Gerd Theissen and Paula Fredriksen now concur, actually, that the Johannine passion account is likely older than Mark's in its pre-gospel form).

That's a tall-order in finding a candidate so qualified to produce such a complex, rich and symbolically-layered literary masterpiece.

But let's consider the 'pointers' in the text of the gospel itself as our guide. My Checklist of Requirements for the Beloved Disciple of Jesus:


  • The Beloved Disciple is most probably of an upper class, and likely priestly family of Jerusalemite extraction: nothing else can really explain the highly educated theology, the preoccupation with the Second Temple cultus and its festivals (which are described in incredibly accurate detail) and the fact that the Beloved Disciple was known to the high priest.
  • The Beloved Disciple is evidently Judean, not Galilean (for the reasons detailed above, I'm not covering that again)
  • The Beloved Disciple is likely not one of the Twelve Apostles: In John's gospel we find no calling of the Twelve Apostles, as in the Synoptic Markan tradition. 'The Twelve' as an inner group of elite disciples did not matter much to our Evangelist (implying that he or she wasn't part of this 'society', as befits a Judean rather than a Galilean disciple). Moreover, as the scholar Michael J. Kok notes: "The constituency of 'the Twelve' (hoi dodeka) is never fully defined in the rare allusions to them in John 6:67, 70, 71 and 20:24 and the Fourth Gospel does not affirm that there no other participants in the Last Supper [than the Twelve]. Even in the Synoptic gospels, Jesus and his Galilean entourage presumably required someone in Jerusalem to make his or her accommodations available to them". (p.15).
  • The Beloved Disciple probably hosted the Last Supper, because he was a high-class Jerusalemite: Given his 'pride of place' next to Jesus and reclining on his bosom at the Last Supper, it can be deduced that the Judean beloved disciple was likely the host of the meal (i.e. it was being held in his or her house).
  • The Beloved Disciple was personally known by the High Priest Caiaphas: this is confirmed both in the text itself, when the anonymous eyewitness surfaces in John 18:15 as the one with the requisite "connections" in high places in Jerusalem to get the Galilean fisherman Peter access to the courtyard where Jesus is being put on trial for blasphemy: "Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, 16 but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in".
  • The early church fathers also understood this verse to be a coded reference by the author to the eyewitnessing-beloved disciple, as we can see from the church father St. Jerome (347 – 420) who tried to 'force' the humble fisherman John into fitting this role to keep with the spurious tradition in respect of his authorship, with the almost laughable attempt to cast John as being of "noble birth":
JEROME, Letters | Loeb Classical Library

"Those unbelievers who read me may perhaps smile to find me lingering over the praises of weak women.

But if they will recall how holy women attended Our Lord and Saviour and ministered to Him of their substance, and how the three Marys stood before the cross, and particularly how Mary Magdalene - called 'of the tower’ because of her earnestness and ardent faith - was privileged to see the rising Christ first even before the apostles, they will convict themselves of pride rather than me of folly, who judge of virtue not by the sex but by the mind.

Therefore it was that Jesus loved the evangelist John most of all; for he was of noble birth and known to the high priest, but he feared the Jews’ plottings so little that he brought Peter into the priest’s palace, and was the only apostle who stood before the cross and took the Saviour’s mother to his own home
."


  • The Beloved Disciple was most likely a member of the Bethany Family from Judea: described in John chapters 11-12. Within the text of the Fourth Gospel, the Greek word Ēgapa - which is derived from the root agape - is the term used to describe the relationship between Jesus and this anonymous Beloved Disciple (i.e. "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved (Ēgapa, ἠγάπα)" (John 13:23)).

    This word is only ever used once in reference to other identifiable dramatis personae in the text, the verse in question being John 11:5: "Now Jesus loved (Ēgapa, ἠγάπα) Martha, and her sister Mary and Lazarus."

    On the face of it, these are our best candidates for the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'. They are expressly described as having been egapa (loved) by Jesus using that very same word (the only other characters so described).

  • The Beloved Disciple was first a follower of John the Baptist: hence the prominence accorded to John in the prologue and early chapters.

  • (lastly and this will be my most "controversial point") The Beloved Disciple was fond of "nuptial mysticism" and used literary motifs from courtship scenes between biblical patriarchs and betrothed women at wells in Genesis, the erotic Song of Songs in the Tanakh and Graeco-Roman romance novels to depict Jesus's relationships with two/three women (the Samaritan woman and Mary of Bethany / Mary Magdalene) in his/her attempt to portray Jesus as the "Bridegroom Messiah" of the New Covenant: a number of scholars have drawn attention to the strong bridal mysticism in the text of the Fourth Gospel, here I cite Jocelyn McWhirter and Fehribach in the 2008 study, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel:

"The “literary conventions of the day” include character types, type-scenes, and techniques of characterization. 62 These can be found first of all in the Hebrew Bible, “one of the most important literary resources for understanding the Fourth Gospel” and the source for several allusions.63 Four allusions are confirmed: Jer. 33:10–11 in John 3:29, Gen. 29:1–20 in John 4:4– 42, Song 1:12 in John 12:3, and Song 3:1– 4 in John 20:1–18.

Important background literature also includes Hellenistic-Jewish writings such as the books of Judith and Susanna, as well as popular Greco-Roman romance novels like Xenophon’s An Ephesian Tale and Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe.

John uses these literary and cultural conventions to portray Jesus as the messianic bridegroom. The mother of Jesus acts as the “mother of an important son”. The Samaritan woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene are all depicted as his betrothed or bride.

An allusion to Song 1:12 in John 12:3 likens Mary of Bethany to the Song’s bride, conventionally understood as the people of God.68 An allusion to Song 3:1– 4 in John 20:1–18 allows Mary Magdalene to assume the conventional role of the woman in search of her dead lover’s body
." (p.80)​


Can I ask you a question?
 
Top