Who wrote the Gospel of John?

[shmogie]

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.

Polycarp was a disciple of John, Ignatius was a student of Polycarp who heard John preach as a young man being with Polycarp. Their letters are extant and as I recall, Iraneus either wrote letters as well, or was a recipient of these confirmation letters.

Look these guy's up, and you can read their letters.,.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

That's just so swell that the gospel touched the hearts of artists, but... same old question... is whoever wrote it telling the truth about the "literal" events that took place or is making up some symbolic spiritual thing?

Here's the end of chapter 19 and all of chapter 20. If John did write this, then he was a witness to all this. So up to chapter 20 he is talking about real events, but afterwards Baha'is think he changed, along with the other gospels, to be telling of symbolic events? If so, when reading this, how would a person know that it is no longer literal?

[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
John.20
[1] The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
[2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
[3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
[4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
[5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
[6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
[7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
[8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
[9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
[10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
[11] But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
[12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
[13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
[14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
[15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
[16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
[18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
[19] Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
[20] And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
[21] Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
[23] Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
[24] But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[25] The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26] And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27] Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
[28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
[29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
[31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's just so swell that the gospel touched the hearts of artists, but... same old question... is whoever wrote it telling the truth about the "literal" events that took place or is making up some symbolic spiritual thing?

Here's the end of chapter 19 and all of chapter 20. If John did write this, then he was a witness to all this. So up to chapter 20 he is talking about real events, but afterwards Baha'is think he changed, along with the other gospels, to be telling of symbolic events? If so, when reading this, how would a person know that it is no longer literal?

We don't know for certain that everything up until John 20 is literal events though. That's making a rather major assumption is it not?

The verses you quote create a strong impression in the readers mind that they could be literal events and that is likely the authors intent. I doubt if the resurrection would have taken on the importance it has in Christian theology if it were presented solely as a mythical story with meaning. Nor do I think that those who believed it to be literally true were harmed in any way by such a belief. To the contrary, the story telling of the author has ensured the resurrection narrative has secured its rightful place in Christian theology and in the hearts of those who truly belief. As for those who doubt, isn't it interesting Thomas didn't recognise Jesus initially except by putting his hands in the wounds of Jesus. What a peculiar method of identification! Mary doesn't recognise Jesus until He speaks her name. We have Jesus who appears to the disciples in a locked room. How did He get there? Then at the end of the story we are told these things are written so we may believe.

I don't know about you CG, but I believe Jesus was crucified, died for our sins, and rose from His grave after 3 days just as prophecy said. Why do you doubt? It is because you haven't put you hands in the wounds of Jesus and suffered as He did. You are yet to pick up your cross and leave yourself and all your doubts behind, trusting wholly in Him. Further you are yet to hear the voice of Jesus Himself call your name from the darkest places or appeared to you. I know I am saved because I believe God has come in the flesh for all mankind. How about you?

 

[blü 2]

The Gospel of John is the fourth of the four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Or in order, Mark (c. 75 CE), Matthew, Luke (both c. the 80s CE) and John (c. 100 CE). The crucifixion is traditionally dated to 30 or 33 CE.

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.

There may be three authors of John. The first author would have written most of it. The next would have inserted the first 18 verses of Chapter 1, which are stylistically distinct from the rest and use λόγος in an unusual sense. The third would have added chapter 21, with its peculiar storytelling and the lover's tiff scene. I accept there's room for disagreement on this.

However, in an age where the average life expectancy was 35-40, the author was or authors were likely born after 33 CE.

Supporting that, the (principal) author drew a much clearer line between Christians and Jews than in the other gospels, casting the Jews as wrong and aggressively so. This fits with the culture of Palestine c. 100 CE when Christianity was ceasing to be a Jewish sect and identifying itself as a distinct religion. That is, the author was culturally of a later time than that attributed to Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

John is a bit too "Eric Cartman" in his love for Jesus, which is fine, not judging, but that's more of a bedroom story, not one I care to see in the bible, much like Song of Solomon. Some guy's fixation is not my problem.

 

[74x12]

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.

Yes John wrote it. John is pretty consistent from his gospel to his epistles. The main theme emphasizing love, the Divinity of Christ and the concept of God being Light.

 

[pearl]

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.

As for the 'beloved disciple' the Gospel doesn't identify him by name. Since ca. 202 Church tradition has regarded John, the son of Zebedee, as the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. But could the fisherman from the Lake of Genesareth have written such a sublime Gospel full of visions of God's mystery? Could the Galilean fisherman have been so closely connected with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.
Eusebius (ca 338) tells of the work of the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, who died about 220. Here is mentioned that he had received the teaching from one "Presbyter John." He distinguishes between the Apostle and the Evangelist John and Presbyter John
suggesting that in Ephesus there may have been a
Johannine school tracing its origin back to Jesus' beloved disciple in which a "Presbyter John" presided as the authority. It is possible that the Gospel goes back to an eyewitness, and the redaction of the text was the work of one of his closest followers within the circle of disciples.

What sets John apart from the others is the Christology from above.

 

[shmogie]

As for the 'beloved disciple' the Gospel doesn't identify him by name. Since ca. 202 Church tradition has regarded John, the son of Zebedee, as the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. But could the fisherman from the Lake of Genesareth have written such a sublime Gospel full of visions of God's mystery? Could the Galilean fisherman have been so closely connected with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.
Eusebius (ca 338) tells of the work of the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, who died about 220. Here is mentioned that he had received the teaching from one "Presbyter John." He distinguishes between the Apostle and the Evangelist John and Presbyter John
suggesting that in Ephesus there may have been a
Johannine school tracing its origin back to Jesus' beloved disciple in which a "Presbyter John" presided as the authority. It is possible that the Gospel goes back to an eyewitness, and the redaction of the text was the work of one of his closest followers within the circle of disciples.

What sets John apart from the others is the Christology from above.

Way too far from the events to assign much credibility to them. For me, all the evidence clearly points to the Apostle John as the author of his gospel.

 

[pearl]

Way too far from the events to assign much credibility to them. For me, all the evidence clearly points to the Apostle John as the author of his gospel.

I think the question of authorship is concerned with who actually penned the Gospel and it seems that it was compiled through stages, and a final redaction by the community in Ephesus. More emphasis ought to be placed on the significant differences between John and the Synoptic gospels. I don't question that the 'eye witness' account as credible, but the situation of the community and the high Christology of John must be taken into consideration.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes John wrote it. John is pretty consistent from his gospel to his epistles. The main theme emphasizing love, the Divinity of Christ and the concept of God being Light.

Why in the world would John write about himself in third person? It's pretty bizarre and not likely.

 

[shmogie]

I think the question of authorship is concerned with who actually penned the Gospel and it seems that it was compiled through stages, and a final redaction by the community in Ephesus. More emphasis ought to be placed on the significant differences between John and the Synoptic gospels. I don't question that the 'eye witness' account as credible, but the situation of the community and the high Christology of John must be taken into consideration.

I am not sure why you think it was written in stages. It was clearly in circulation by c. AD 130. John probably died around c. AD 100, I have already alluded to extant letters that make it clear that he was a real person who knew and was with Jesus, who was monumental in teaching the Gospel, and who was the last of the Apostles to die.

There has been a lot of writing done on the differences between the Synoptics and John. I would urge you to pursue some of this material. For me, the differences became clearer to understand, as well as the reasons they exist becoming more clear

 

[pearl]

I am not sure why you think it was written in stages.

First stage, pre Gospel (50's to 80's)
There was the origins of the Johannine Community with a 'lower' Christology
There came a second group with a higher Christology resulting in the conflict with the Jews in part due their being Samaritan converts not believing Jesus to be messiah in the Davidic sense. But a theology from 'above', the Word that existed in God's presence before creation has become flesh in Jesus. And then of course the Gentiles.

Second stage writing of the Gospel 90
"The exalted Johannine Christology is not some abstract test of orthodoxy that has nothing to do with community living. If it is crucial to believe that Jesus is the pre-existent Word of God who has come from God and is of God, it is because then we know what God is really like-He really is a God of love who so loved the world that He was willing to give of Himself, in His Son (3:16,, 1Jn 4, 8-9) and not merely send someone else."
reference; 'The Community of the Beloved Disciple'

There has been a lot of writing done on the differences between the Synoptics and John. I would urge you to pursue some of this material.

I assure you I have for many years.

 

[shmogie]

First stage, pre Gospel (50's to 80's)
There was the origins of the Johannine Community with a 'lower' Christology
There came a second group with a higher Christology resulting in the conflict with the Jews in part due their being Samaritan converts not believing Jesus to be messiah in the Davidic sense. But a theology from 'above', the Word that existed in God's presence before creation has become flesh in Jesus. And then of course the Gentiles.

Second stage writing of the Gospel 90
"The exalted Johannine Christology is not some abstract test of orthodoxy that has nothing to do with community living. If it is crucial to believe that Jesus is the pre-existent Word of God who has come from God and is of God, it is because then we know what God is really like-He really is a God of love who so loved the world that He was willing to give of Himself, in His Son (3:16,, 1Jn 4, 8-9) and not merely send someone else."
reference; 'The Community of the Beloved Disciple'



I assure you I have for many years.

Is there documentation from the period, or shortly thereafter, that supports this idea ? If so, I haven't come across them.,

Your phraseology leads me to surmise that you do not believe the Apostle John existed, or wrote his Gospel, correct ?

 

[CG Didymus]

We don't know for certain that everything up until John 20 is literal events though. That's making a rather major assumption is it not?

The verses you quote create a strong impression in the readers mind that they could be literal events and that is likely the authors intent. I doubt if the resurrection would have taken on the importance it has in Christian theology if it were presented solely as a mythical story with meaning. Nor do I think that those who believed it to be literally true were harmed in any way by such a belief. To the contrary, the story telling of the author has ensured the resurrection narrative has secured its rightful place in Christian theology and in the hearts of those who truly belief. As for those who doubt, isn't it interesting Thomas didn't recognise Jesus initially except by putting his hands in the wounds of Jesus. What a peculiar method of identification! Mary doesn't recognise Jesus until He speaks her name. We have Jesus who appears to the disciples in a locked room. How did He get there? Then at the end of the story we are told these things are written so we may believe.

I don't know about you CG, but I believe Jesus was crucified, died for our sins, and rose from His grave after 3 days just as prophecy said. Why do you doubt? It is because you haven't put you hands in the wounds of Jesus and suffered as He did. You are yet to pick up your cross and leave yourself and all your doubts behind, trusting wholly in Him. Further you are yet to hear the voice of Jesus Himself call your name from the darkest places or appeared to you. I know I am saved because I believe God has come in the flesh for all mankind. How about you?

So if we don't know the events prior are literal, then what do we believe about the gospel? You know you are saved? In a metaphorical way?

A "strong impression" that they could be literal? That's what I've been saying. They wrote it as if it were true. But, if the Baha'is are right, Jesus is physically dead and couldn't have appeared to anyone in a physical body. I'm okay with it being fictional. But then, is being "saved" fictional? Since Jesus didn't die and conquer death. He died and that was it. He's dead. Salvation for Christians includes a risen Savior. The "Salvation" you have is not that. It is in the belief that Baha'u'llah is the Return of the Christ Spirit. Which is fine...if true. All we're doing is showing areas of concern about the validity of the Baha'i message.

 

[CG Didymus]

John is a bit too "Eric Cartman" in his love for Jesus, which is fine, not judging, but that's more of a bedroom story, not one I care to see in the bible, much like Song of Solomon. Some guy's fixation is not my problem.

Are Christians and Baha'is allowed to watch "South Park"? Although I think they should at least watch the episode where Cartman starts a Christian Rock Band.

 

[CG Didymus]

As for the 'beloved disciple' the Gospel doesn't identify him by name. Since ca. 202 Church tradition has regarded John, the son of Zebedee, as the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. But could the fisherman from the Lake of Genesareth have written such a sublime Gospel full of visions of God's mystery? Could the Galilean fisherman have been so closely connected with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.
Eusebius (ca 338) tells of the work of the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, who died about 220. Here is mentioned that he had received the teaching from one "Presbyter John." He distinguishes between the Apostle and the Evangelist John and Presbyter John
suggesting that in Ephesus there may have been a
Johannine school tracing its origin back to Jesus' beloved disciple in which a "Presbyter John" presided as the authority. It is possible that the Gospel goes back to an eyewitness, and the redaction of the text was the work of one of his closest followers within the circle of disciples.

What sets John apart from the others is the Christology from above.

How about Revelation? Same author as the epistles and gospel?

 

[shmogie]

So if we don't know the events prior are literal, then what do we believe about the gospel? You know you are saved? In a metaphorical way?

A "strong impression" that they could be literal? That's what I've been saying. They wrote it as if it were true. But, if the Baha'is are right, Jesus is physically dead and couldn't have appeared to anyone in a physical body. I'm okay with it being fictional. But then, is being "saved" fictional? Since Jesus didn't die and conquer death. He died and that was it. He's dead. Salvation for Christians includes a risen Savior. The "Salvation" you have is not that. It is in the belief that Baha'u'llah is the Return of the Christ Spirit. Which is fine...if true. All we're doing is showing areas of concern about the validity of the Baha'i message.

It is all literal, as written. As Paul said, if Christ did not rise ( literally and physically) from the grave then it is all a fairy tale. There is no salvation for anyone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is all literal, as written. As Paul said, if Christ did not rise ( literally and physically) from the grave then it is all a fairy tale. There is no salvation for anyone.

I never felt a need for salvation. There was no danger in the first place .

 

[74x12]

Why in the world would John write about himself in third person? It's pretty bizarre and not likely.

Probably for the sake of humility. He wasn't trying to show off about everything he personally experienced.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Probably for the sake of humility. He wasn't trying to show off about everything he personally experienced.

If, for sake of argument, John was the author, then it's likely his use of illeism strongly supports a fictional narrative.

It could also mean John was never actually the real name of the real author but rather a pen name for which the character of John is based in allegory to portray the story of Jesus.

I'm not sure if the latter was a common practice for various literary works in that day, as well as the use of of third person in general .

I tend to think of the gospel of the Bible is a medieval creation based off pieces and bits of old manuscripts and the hearsay of oral traditions.