Apostle John was not the disciple, I think his gospels show this clearly.

[IndigoChild5559]

Now where did you get that from? That's not certain at all.
One account tells that he fell over in his field and split his stomach open....another tells of suicide.

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

I realize there is more than one story of his death, and that they conflict. However, in both cases, he was dead.

 

[oldbadger]

The eleven disciples were all called Apostles.

A review of the OP might help you. I wrote:-
This thread is dedicated to comparing the accounts as reported in the synoptic gospels with John's account, just that.

.......... and no disciple is referred to as an apostle in any of them, nor did Jesus give any such title to any of them. Apostles were titled after Jesus.......
But Apostle John could not have been disciple John. He didn't know anything about disciple John as reported in any of the synoptics.

 

[oldbadger]

Just to be clear, at that time in histiory, there was no territory of Palestine. There were the provinces of Judea, Samaria, and Gallilee

Why did you miss out Idumea, Perea, the Decapolis, the Northern Provinces ?
All together they have often been called Palestine....all together.

 

[oldbadger]

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

I realize there is more than one story of his death, and that they conflict. However, in both cases, he was dead.

Well, you could have shown the other one ! In the other account he did not give back the money, he spent it, on a field. And then he fell in that field and split open his stomach.

I think that Christianity prefers the guilt ridden Judas, throwing down the money, hanging self (suicide being really taboo...!) The purchase of the field and accidental death can be overlooked in favour of the guilt ridden traitor. Yummy!

 

[firedragon]

Because he committed suicide, and was dead.

But if you read John 6, after reading Mark 3, you would see that 12 were appointed, and that Judas was one of the 12. Judas of Simon Iscariot, verbatim mentioned there in.

 

[Kenny]

He mentioned John as being on Patmos, so that makes it a different John. Just pointing that out. The book of Revelation doesn't belong to the same John as the gospel is attributed to. If we're discussing authorship, it's important to make that distinction.

Again... let's no derail the OP. We are talking about the Gospel of John.

Let's question that. Why? Why would someone who did not directly know the actual authors themselves, but lived in a different region of the world, a hundred years removed after the texts were written, have better insights into authorship? Things passed on by tradition is not the same thing as a critical literary analysis of the texts. The tools of modernity are an order of magnitude more revealing than the tools of premodernity.

Think of it like the way people reasoned about the moons of Jupiter prior to the invention of the modern telescope. Prior to that we speculated based upon what appeared to the unaided naked eye. A limited amount of information was available, and we did our best. Inventive and well-reasoned logic arguments were used to make the case for what they believed to be true, such as there must be five moons because there are five elements and five orifices of the body, but clearly they made mistakes based upon that limited vision.

Reliance upon tradition alone, while it has some value as far as traditionalism goes, is not the same thing as actual critical scholarship. Modern scholarship out-contextualizes premodern scholarship. We simply have better tools available to us. Accepting modern scholarship does not mean you deny religious faith. It simply means you rethink how we once imagined things to be in a new light. That's all.

I disagree (and your example isn't applicable.).

Ignacios of Antioch was not a hundred years before and quoted John. I believe they are a better critical scholar than some of today's scholars.

Even in today's scholars, there are more that are for John being the author than those against. IMV

Branding these things as "liberal" is disingenuous. They are modern, like the telescope or a microscope is modern. Would you claim that data collected by the Hubble telescope is a "liberal bias"? Of course not. These are tools, not ideologies. How you interpret the meaning of these things is a subjective matter. Those can be 'liberal' or 'conservative' in nature. But denying the veracity of the findings, is just disingenuousness, or "bad faith".

Again... your example isn't applicable. I believe it is more disingenuous to select only those that support your liberal viewpoint while throwing out those who lived closest to the event as well as the majority of today's scholars that believe John was the author.

 

[Kenny]

No Ken
I don't think so.
Imagine that you had witnessed that amazing incident, would you not have mentioned it? Nothing?
No personal experiences mentioned?

That's a stretch.

No... if it is common knowledge, why not "add" to what is known? If you study John, you would find it is not synoptic.

As John said, "20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

That is the subject matter and not another synoptic gospel (there were already three, no need for a fourth)

 

[Kenny]

Why don't you just review the gospels? Other people opinions can't help you with your own readings.

I have...

It is a great book written by John.

 

[oldbadger]

No... if it is common knowledge, why not "add" to what is known? If you study John, you would find it is not synoptic.

As John said, "20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

That is the subject matter and not another synoptic gospel (there were already three, no need for a fourth)

Ken.... Are you telling me that the Transfiguration of Jesus was not worth mentioning in G-John?
He wasn't there, Ken.

 

[oldbadger]

I have...

It is a great book written by John.

......the author of which doesn't know what Jesus and disciples did.
I've asked you before, I guess, but let me ask you again. What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and Temple on the first day of that last week, the week before Passover? Apostle John didn't know.

 

[Brian2]

No slants.
Let's see what your possibilities are.

That John, or those who wrote for John from what they had heard John say, had read the other Gospels in circulation and knew that another mention of the transfiguration was not needed.
John's gospel is like this about other things also. There are other things that are in the synoptic gospels and not in John's (or visa versa).

 

[Brian2]

The only way to attribute the gospel of John to someone is to speculate. Scholars are pretty much unanimous on this matter. The author is unknown.

If we were the ones who had to attribute the gospel to someone then we may have to speculate.
We aren't the ones who have to do that.
Who wrote the gospel, or whom it came from, was passed down in the tradition of the Church and it should be reliable and not speculation because there were apostolic Fathers who know John and knew people who knew him and quoted from the gospel in their writings.

 

[firedragon]

Who wrote the gospel, or whom it came from, was passed down in the tradition of the Church

No it wasn't.

Someone mentioning they knew someone called John does not have or make any provenance to the Gospel of John which is anonymous. This is general, scholarly consensus. And prior to immediately expected genetic fallacy of "liberal scholars are B.S", I can tell you that even conservative scholars have the same consensus.

Cheers.

 

[oldbadger]

That John, or those who wrote for John from what they had heard John say,

Excellent! So Apostle John may not even have written G-John. OK

...... had read the other Gospels in circulation and knew that another mention of the transfiguration was not needed.

What?!! The most exciting experience ever for Disciple John, not needed?
But they thought the last supper was repeatable? And a few other events?

John's gospel is like this about other things also. There are other things that are in the synoptic gospels and not in John's (or visa versa).

Yes... I know.... like a description of what Jesus and disciples did during the days of that last week, and other important incidents. Some of the incidents that are described in G-John are most worrying, but I'll have to come to those later.
No corroboration.............

 

[RestlessSoul]

No Ken
I don't think so.
Imagine that you had witnessed that amazing incident, would you not have mentioned it? Nothing?
No personal experiences mentioned?

That's a stretch.

The best writers tend not to put themselves at the centre of the narrative.

 

[oldbadger]

Who wrote the gospel, or whom it came from, was passed down in the tradition of the Church ...........

That very idea immediately reduces the deposition of this gospel from Primary Evidence to secondary/tertiary ... hear-say evidence.

Disciple John? No.

 

[oldbadger]

The best writers tend not to put themselves at the centre of the narrative.

What?! This was supposed to be a deposition!
But you are wrong.... Apostle John placed himself deeply in to the narrative at times, writing as if from his own experience, but missing out key and crucial incidents.

 

[oldbadger]

No it wasn't.

Someone mentioning they knew someone called John does not have or make any provenance to the Gospel of John which is anonymous. This is general, scholarly consensus. And prior to immediately expected genetic fallacy of "liberal scholars are B.S", I can tell you that even conservative scholars have the same consensus.
Cheers.

The scholars disagree with each other, which cancels out much of the value of scholar's opinions. The gospels are there for anyone to read, to anyone to discern and decide about.
And Disciple John wrote none of it.
More evidence and exhibits to come.

 

[pearl]

The possible authors of John's Gospel
John-Son of Zebedee, Presbyster John who appears to be the sender and author of the 2nd and 3rd Letters of John. It is suggested that in Ephesus there was something like a Johannine school which traced its origin to Jesus' favorite disciple.
All the Gospel authors wrote for the benefit of their particular churches, and the church of John's community faced very different circumstances.

 

[firedragon]

The scholars disagree with each other, which cancels out much of the value of scholar's opinions. The gospels are there for anyone to read, to anyone to discern and decide about.
And Disciple John wrote none of it.
More evidence and exhibits to come.

A very very missionary types who call themselves scholars might have some extreme view that opposes most of the Christian scholars, but that does not mean all of them can just be cancelled. Its a fallacious argument.

Yep. Gospels are there for anyone to read, and nowhere in it does it say that it was written by John, and who this John was.

So you won't have any other evidence since you have not claimed the book as authority, and nothing else. No scholar, nothing. The book has no claims so if you bring external sources, you will be going behind your own standard.

Anonymous.