• 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?

firedragon

Veteran 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?

Honestly I have never read this authors books, and never heard of him. So I cannot really connect with his work.

Papias wrote a series called Kurion kiriakon exegesis. That we know from Irenaeus, but not because we have his actual books. Some scholars have dated his work to a time period between 80 to 160 AD, thus if that is correct it is very similar to the Gospel according to John or at least the earlier date of Papias is. Though Mark has the priority, and John the inferiority, John seems to have had a very significant impact and take up. One of the main reason to think like this is the discussions on the two famous Johns, the Gospel, and the earliest ever found manuscript of any book of the New Testament is from the Gospel of John. How come the latest Gospel has the earliest manuscript surviving? Maybe because it was more taken.

Nevertheless, speaking of these disciples, going through the four Gospels in perspective, the sons of Zebedee, one of which this thread seems to be addressing as the author of the Gospel of John was only mentioned in Mark or the Markan tradition. This guy is not mentioned in John, or in fact any other book. Only in Mark. Now in Mark you would notice that Peter, John, James and some would argue Andrew also are like a "close companion" type. You would notice that in the Synoptic Problem address, the Gospel of Matthew or Luke do not mention these disciples in any verse other than those we call are from the source of Mark. Thus, only in the verses that are copied from mark or at least you could say "influenced by Mark" almost verbatim contain them. Outside this tradition they are cited once. Also you would note that John cites Nicodemus, Nathanael, Lazarus, Mary who's husband was Clopas as important disciples with significant roles. Lazarus is even assumed to be "that beloved disciple" by some scholars. But they are not so in the Synoptic Gospels. Thats just about the disciples in perspective of the four Gospels and I just mentioned it to show one of the reason for the Synoptic Gospels to be Synoptic and John to be not.

It was Eusebius who quotes the prologue of Papias as far as I recall. Okay. I can trust that Eusebius was truthful. This definitely shows that Papias knew the Gospel of John. If that was your point, I would respond with an "absolutely".

Also, the statement you copied from this author you quoted, I can recognise it verbatim from another scholars work. I mean, "verbatim". And I must agree with it. I cannot deny it because this is absolutely accurate. Papias according to Eusebius mentioned the first six names exactly in the order the Gospel of John mentioned them. This means Papias was writing almost with this part of the Gospel in his hand. What is significant to note is that the epilogue of John is taken by Papias which means he had not only the Book of Signs, the book of Glory but also the Epilogue. But if you note there, the author addresses the Sons of Zebedee in the Epilogue. But he calls the "beloved Disciple" separately. Making John, the son of Zebedee, and the author of this book would mean he is both the beloved disciple, the son of Zebedee, and he himself. The problem is, most who make this case without much consideration have not even read the book. The significance of what you have done is not highlighted enough. This listing of the 6 disciples, exactly in the order of the Gospel of John by Papias shows one major thing. That is, he never thought that the "beloved disciple" was "John the son of Zebedee". I hope you understand that logic. The Gospel mentions the beloved disciple early, then mentions SONS OF ZEBEDEE right at the end. Completely cloven apart. Also, the man some call was a hearer of John, does not make the connection.

And you are absolutely right I think, because Papias has Matthew as well in there who was not there in the Gospel of John. Thus that was either picked from tradition or Matthew. Yet he drops Nathaniel in two instances.

I just elaborated a bit because I feel you had kind of touched on something significant.

And finally, I agree. Of course Papias knew the Gospel of John.

Peace.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
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.'"

Great post!

On that point about 'revelation being closed' after the conclusion of Apostolic Age but our understanding of it being ongoing, we of course call this "development of doctrine".

As a dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council explained (1965):


The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.

This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.

This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.

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


(Dei Verbum 8)​


This is the Catholic way of being, as Cardinal and saint John Henry Newman noted in the nineteenth century: "a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded" (241)

Tradition is organic, it grows from the same and eternal source which is its seed.

St.Vincent of Lérins wrote concerning doctrinal development in the fifth century:

Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only with the proper limits".

 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Honestly I have never read this authors books, and never heard of him. So I cannot really connect with his work.
I'm not sure I was hoping for you to "connect with his work," simply to respond to his observation.

Though Mark has the priority, and John the inferiority, John seems to have had a very significant impact and take up. One of the main reason to think like this is the discussions on the two famous Johns, the Gospel, and the earliest ever found manuscript of any book of the New Testament is from the Gospel of John. How come the latest Gospel has the earliest manuscript surviving? Maybe because it was more taken.
Again, this is not a personal area of interest. That said, let me add that, if one's main reason manifests as a highly speculative maybe, one's case seems a little less compelling.

Also, the statement you copied from this author you quoted, I can recognise it verbatim from another scholars work. I mean, "verbatim". And I must agree with it.
You should also report it. Plagiarism, and suggestions of plagiarism, should be taken very seriously.

This listing of the 6 disciples, exactly in the order of the Gospel of John by Papias shows one major thing. That is, he never thought that the "beloved disciple" was "John the son of Zebedee". I hope you understand that logic. The Gospel mentions the beloved disciple early, then mentions SONS OF ZEBEDEE right at the end. Completely cloven apart.
I understand the inference much as I understood your previous "maybe" and consider them to be not dissimilar.

Of course Papias knew the Gospel of John.

Thanks for the commentary.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I'm not sure I was hoping for you to "connect with his work," simply to respond to his observation.


Again, this is not a personal area of interest. That said, let me add that, if one's main reason manifests as a highly speculative maybe, one's case seems a little less compelling.


You should also report it. Plagiarism, and suggestions of plagiarism, should be taken very seriously.


I understand the inference much as I understood your previous "maybe" and consider them to be not dissimilar.



Thanks for the commentary.

Not understood at all. I think. Nice.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium 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:"



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.




Maybe you should read what Eusebius actually says.

View attachment 46640



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.

There is a reasonable case to be made for two Johns, John the Apostle and John the Presbyter. I would need to carefully study 'all' the relevant texts, which I haven't got round to yet. Whatever the outcome, I have no problem with it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There is a reasonable case to be made for two Johns, John the Apostle and John the Presbyter. I would need to carefully study 'all' the relevant texts, which I haven't got round to yet. Whatever the outcome, I have no problem with it.

Brother. Before you study the evidence, if you had already decided there is a reasonable case, that's going nowhere.

Bon Voyage.
 
Top