Who wrote the Gospel of John?

[Dawnofhope]

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 (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 2:2. John 21:7). The author is anonymosu 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.

However according to Wikipedia the authorship of the Johannine works, the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation, has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. Its acknowledged there may have been a single author for the gospel and the three epistles such John the Apostle. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is. Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, all four works probably originated from the same community, traditionally and plausibly attributed to Ephesus, c. 90-110, but perhaps, according to some scholars, from Syria.

Some scholars, however, argue that the apostle John wrote none of these works, although others, hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

So who did write the Gospel of John and was it the apostle John? Does it actually matter? I suspect the Apostle John may have written it for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph. On the other hand who wrote it doesn't change my belief it was Divinely inspired.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

John was always my favorite Gospel. I love its poetry and how it fully presents Christ as God. I don't know if the Apostle John wrote it. Probably not. It was probably written by a follower of his from an oral tradition that he started.

 

[wizanda]

So who did write the Gospel of John and was it the apostle John?

John the Disciple attended the Transfiguration; which is recorded best in Mark where it says it was as white as snow... Who ever recorded the Gospel of John doesn't even mention it.

John is mostly recorded by a member of the Sanhedrin as a large percentage is private conversations among the Pharisees, and Sanhedrin...

The Style of writing used in John is a type of Midrash from the time period, which is Pharisaic.

Nicodemus is mentioned 3 times within the Gospel, each time portraying him in a good light, and knowledge only he would have had...

So Nicodemus stood up to the Sanhedrin, declaring it wasn't Lawful what they were doing, he met Yeshua by night and spoke about being born again, which is only known by Yeshua and Nicodemus, and thus implying Nicodemus has to be a partial author; plus lastly the burial herbs, which Nicodemus purchased.

At the end of the Gospel of John it records 'we' know it is true, as we took it from a disciple...

So that would most likely be Simon the stone (petros); as it again records private conversations not recorded elsewhere that only Simon knew.

Yet overall the Gospel of John is there to purposely misrepresent Yeshua, creating deformation of character on multiple occasions; so it isn't written by his allies, and most likely written by the Sanhedrin to stop Jews from accepting Yeshua, whilst unfortunately the Gentles have followed it.

In my opinion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not convinced it matters much who wrote any of the Gospels , that is to say it would not change a single word one way or the other.
The authority of the Gospels was accepted and established extremely early in the christian faith at a time when the continuity of knowledge about their authorship was certain. Unfortunately we can no longer be certain about this. As it was never recorded.
I take them to be the best record that we have about the life and times and of peoples beliefs as to what Jesus taught and did leading up to his death and resurrection,
I do not see them as having any magical properties or in any way the word of God, as that would precude errors and omissions. They are the best we have but not perfection.

 

[Dawnofhope]

John was always my favorite Gospel. I love its poetry and how it fully presents Christ as God. I don't know if the Apostle John wrote it. Probably not. It was probably written by a follower of his from an oral tradition that he started.

The Gospels of Matthew and John are equal for me. I enjoy the contrasting yet complimentary portraits of the Life and Teachings of Jesus.

I like the idea it may have been based on his oral tradition. Its generally accepted John was the last of the gospels to be written so the author was probably acquainted with the synoptics. Of course we can't know for certain, but its fascinating reflecting on the millieu (oral traditions amidst the Jews and Gentiles) from which the gospels emerged.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yet overall the Gospel of John is there to purposely misrepresent Yeshua, creating deformation of character on multiple occasions; so it isn't written by his allies, and most likely written by the Sanhedrin to stop Jews from accepting Yeshua, whilst unfortunately the Gentles have followed it.

With references to verses, where do you think it misrepresents the character of Christ?

Was it not a good thing that the Gentiles followed it, or should it have been a largely Jewish affair like the Tanakh?

 

[wizanda]

where do you think it misrepresents the character of Christ?

• On over turning the money tables, he makes a chord ties knots (cat and nine tails), and drives the cattle and money changers out.
• When asked to go to a party, he says no, then later goes in disguise.
• States that those who came before were thieves and robbers.
• Egotistically answers overriding the other person, rather than humbly asking questions, and expounding on parables.
• Theologically changes where Yeshua is coming from.
• Makes Yeshua's character look rude about Jews as a people, rather than challenging the sects.
• Says he was committing suicide, rather than being murdered.
• Makes it all about him, rather than all about God.
• Etc.

That is a start, as the list of 30 points show, the whole of John is purposefully there like a morality IQ test to see who pays attention.

Was it not a good thing that the Gentiles followed it, or should it have been a largely Jewish affair like the Tanakh?

The Gentiles have systematically been set up to go to Hell; the Gospel of John purposefully gets them to accuse God of murder, accept human sacrifice, drink blood and eat flesh; it is like everything illegal, written in nice poetic words.

John was to prevent Jews from accepting Yeshua, and it succeeds as many Jews cite reasons from John not to accept Yeshua...

Plus in the grand scheme of it all, the Gospel of John fulfills prophecy with its 7 "I Am's", to catch out all the workers of iniquity.

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

By the intimacy and the totality of what was written, I would say it was John who wrote it. Of course, it doesn't say it was written by John and so the questions goes on.

 

[David T]

The answer depends on the readers subconscious disposition which varies. Just like our obsevations and interpretations of nature curiously enough. Owen Barfield said that the texts were extremely problematic due to morphology. A phenomena that we can see around us but one that seems more difficult to see historically in ourselves.

The studies of Morphology in both language and biology follow a rather interestingly shared view of using a branch tree structure as a methodology of morphological studies. I tend to take a more biological organic perspective and generally when i see confusion i say "trees make more sense than people."

Thus i am going to say the tree wrote the text. There is always a deeper narrative at work regardless. That at times in christian history has been expressed in art. There are a number of tree crucifiction images in particular the renaissance and mediaeval period.

 

[shmogie]

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 (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 2:2. John 21:7). The author is anonymosu 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.

However according to Wikipedia the authorship of the Johannine works, the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation, has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. Its acknowledged there may have been a single author for the gospel and the three epistles such John the Apostle. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is. Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, all four works probably originated from the same community, traditionally and plausibly attributed to Ephesus, c. 90-110, but perhaps, according to some scholars, from Syria.

Some scholars, however, argue that the apostle John wrote none of these works, although others, hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

So who did write the Gospel of John and was it the apostle John? Does it actually matter? I suspect the Apostle John may have written it for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph. On the other hand who wrote it doesn't change my belief it was Divinely inspired.[/QU

Wikepedia is not the greatest source of information.

There are extant letters of early church fathers who studied under John, or under students of John. These letters make it clear that he was the author of the Gospel.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry in that my response is in the body of the quotation

 

[Axe Elf]

This is like, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

 

[Audie]

This is like, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

In what way

 

[Dawnofhope]

The answer depends on the readers subconscious disposition which varies. Just like our obsevations and interpretations of nature curiously enough. Owen Barfield said that the texts were extremely problematic due to morphology. A phenomena that we can see around us but one that seems more difficult to see historically in ourselves.

The studies of Morphology in both language and biology follow a rather interestingly shared view of using a branch tree structure as a methodology of morphological studies. I tend to take a more biological organic perspective and generally when i see confusion i say "trees make more sense than people."

Thus i am going to say the tree wrote the text. There is always a deeper narrative at work regardless. That at times in christian history has been expressed in art. There are a number of tree crucifiction images in particular the renaissance and mediaeval period.
View attachment 25910

It’s best to have a more mystical perspective in approaching the Gospel of John rather than seeing it as literal truth. An evidence of its Divine nature is how it profoundly touches hearts and minds inspiring great art. The rich truth and beauty of John’s theological narrative is often best seen through the eyes of artists.

 

[Axe Elf]

In what way

Really?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Wikepedia is not the greatest source of information.

There are extant letters of early church fathers who studied under John, or under students of John. These letters make it clear that he was the author of the Gospel.

The first paragraph of the OP was adapted from my NIV study Bible.

While Wikipedia has its faults, it does succeed in many respects in meeting the criteria for being an encyclopaedia.

Citations or references to the extant letters you mentioned would advance the discussion.

 

[Audie]

Really?

Uh, yeah, whatevs.

 

[Axe Elf]

Uh, yeah, whatevs.

The work of Douglas Hofstadter in the field of artificial intelligence suggests that the ability to make analogies is the basis for intelligence.

You might want to work on that.

 

[Audie]

The work of Douglas Hofstadter in the field of artificial intelligence suggests that the ability to make analogies is the basis for intelligence.
You might want to work on that.

A lot of guys go all nasty when a girl is
dismissive of them.

 

[Axe Elf]

A lot of guys go all nasty when a girl is
dismissive of them.

See, that would be an analogy. Keep up the good work, because my contempt for those with the inability to make analogies crosses gender lines.