Can anyone here prove to me that the Gospel of John was actually written by the Apostle John?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Christian2

Can anyone here prove to me that the Gospel of John was actually written by the Apostle John?

Thank you.

Aside from the fact that John is the only gospel that gives direct internal clues as to its authorship or source, what more would you like?

Are you interested in internal evidence, external attestation, or the conclusions of critical scholarship?

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Are you interested in internal evidence, external attestation, or the conclusions of critical scholarship?

Yes. (At least, that's my answer ...)

Although I don't care as much about who wrote it as I do about when it was written, and what is the date of the oldest manuscripts.

Originally posted by Cognos

Yes. (At least, that's my answer ...)

Although I don't care as much about who wrote it as I do about when it was written, and what is the date of the oldest manuscripts.

Quick and dirty summary of the concrete evidence:

The Fourth Gospel is the only one of the canonical four that offers any direct evidence as to who its source is. This is through the repeated references to the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved," or "beloved disciple." This disciple is portrayed throughout the gospel as particularly close to Jesus, and is almost certainly one of the Twelve.

The two references to the Beloved Disciple that are pertinant to questions of authorship come in John 19:35 and 21:24, which both claim that the Beloved Disciple is the main source (if not the only source) from which the gospel was composed. They may or may not claim that the disciple actually wrote the gospel, but at the very least, they say that he is the source of the tradition contained in the gospel.

With concern for the question of date, this means that the gospel's original written form must have been composed within the Beloved Disciple's lifetime for him to have been the source (or the author!) of the text.

So who was the Beloved Disciple? I believe that we can safely narrow him down to one of the Twelve because of his consistent presence with Jesus, even in the Garden on the night of his betrayal. It's also quite likely that he was one of the "Inner Circle" of disciples, consisting of Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John. We know that Peter is not the Beloved Disciple because of his explicit mention by name, and James, son of Zebedee was martyred by Herod in the early to mid AD 40's (Acts 12:2), much too early to have been the author. That leaves only John as the most likely candidate being the Beloved Disciple. (Forget all that Da Vinci Code crap about Mary Magdalene being the Beloved Disciple- the text clearly identifies the Beloved Disciple as a male).

The one concrete internal clue to date we have is in John 21:18-19-

Scripture Verse:

18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

This is often seen as a prediction of Peter's martyrdom. Since Peter was most likely killed by crucifixion in the 60's under Nero, that means that this text was most likely composed after that time, probably the 70's or later. (Of course, many scholars believe that chapter 21 is an appended ending to the gospel added after the first 20 chapters were written. This may or may not be.

The earliest manuscript evidence is the famous scrap of papyrus known as P51, currently housed in the John Rylands Library in England. It is dated by most textual scholars in the "early second century," probably about AD 125, and contains several verses from John's gospel. It happens to be the oldest existing manuscript for any text in the New Testament.

Church tradition, including the very early witnesses of Polycarp and Irenaeus, place the composition of the gospel late in John's life in the city of Ephesus. In my judgment, a date around AD 85-90 is most likely, making it the last of the canonical four gospels to be composed by the man who was probably the last living disciple of Jesus at the time.

Thanks.

1) How do scholars know that all of the Gospel of John was by the same person who wrote P51? As you mention above, "many scholars believe that chapter 21 is an appended ending to the gospel added after the first 20 chapters were written." Is because of differences in literary style?

2) What was John doing from Jesus' death to "around AD 85-90"? Was he hiding from the authorities? Why didn't he give up his life for his faith?

Originally posted by Cognos

Thanks.

1) How do scholars know that all of the Gospel of John was by the same person who wrote P51?

It's not that P51 was by the same hand as John's Gospel, all I said was that P51 contains some verses from John's gospel. It's just a fragment of a copy of the gospel, but happens to be the oldest coy of any part of the NT we posess currently. It was found far away from Jerusalem in Egypt, so that means that by AD 125, John's gospel was being copied and copied and spread far across the land.

As you mention above, "many scholars believe that chapter 21 is an appended ending to the gospel added after the first 20 chapters were written." Is because of differences in literary style?

The style is still quite similar, it's mainly the word choice that suggests to some scholars a different author. That and the fact that the end of chapter 20 might indicate that it was originally the end of the gospel:

John 20:

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Some scholars believe this could have been the original ending, but there's no way to tell conclusively one way or another.

2) What was John doing from Jesus' death to "around AD 85-90"? Was he hiding from the authorities? Why didn't he give up his life for his faith?

My guess would be he was preaching and teaching and healing, just like the other apostles, but for whatever reason, escaped martyrdom. We know from Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians that he was a leader in the Jerusalem church- Paul even calls him a "Pillar" of the community in Galatians. But after James' (Jesus' brother's) martyrdom in AD 62, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70, he probably travelled to Ephesus where he lived out the rest of his days.

Church tradition (Eusebius and others) suggests that he was the only disciple from among the twelve to die a natural death and escape martyrdom, but there's no way to know that for certain.

Correction- I'm really dumb.

The John fragment from AD 125 is P52, not P51. Sorry for the mistake!

What is your opinion of this:

Authorship of the Johannine works

Most critical scholars today conclude (with the tradition) that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was in fact John the Apostle; however, there remains the question of whether this apostle was actually the author of the texts. Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised. First of all, the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, requiring a good level of education. But the Synoptic Gospels are united in identifying John as a fisherman, whom one would not picture as well-educated. Against this objection, might be noted that John was not a hired fisherman, but rather someone who could afford to own a boat, and may thus have had access to sufficient income to pay for teaching. However, the Acts of the Apostles refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".
...
A large portion of scholars therefore accept a connection with John the Apostle for the fourth Gospel. Most posit a community of disciples around the apostle that gave final form to the work. In particular, Chapter 21 is very different stylistically from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition. R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works

---

© source where applicable

Originally posted by Cognos

What is your opinion of this:

Authorship of the Johannine works

Most critical scholars today conclude (with the tradition) that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was in fact John the Apostle; however, there remains the question of whether this apostle was actually the author of the texts.

---

© source where applicable

Authorship of the Johannine works

I don't dispute that. It is indeed possible that he didn't write it directly. If this is the case, we can say then that he either dictated it to an amneusis (a secretary, which was a common practice in those days) OR that a disciple of John wrote the gospel based on what he had heard from John's teaching over his lifetime.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised. First of all, the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, requiring a good level of education. But the Synoptic Gospels are united in identifying John as a fisherman, whom one would not picture as well-educated. Against this objection, might be noted that John was not a hired fisherman, but rather someone who could afford to own a boat, and may thus have had access to sufficient income to pay for teaching. However, the Acts of the Apostles refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".

This is quite true, however, the Greek of the gospel of John is very rudimentary and simplistic compared with the masterful Greek of Luke-Acts or Hebrews. I know- I worked with John's gospel in my Elementary Greek class last year. He uses the same vocabulary over and over, and doesn't have very complex sentence structure at all. This is consistent with the idea of either a less-than-educated man, or someone whose Greek skills aren't very sophisticated- both of which match with the profile of John given in the NT. Also- in the Greek, you can detect many examples of Semitic thought processes coming through in his Greek word choice. This is also consistent, since John was a Jew.

Plus, it must be rememberd that this gospel was written many years after the events it describes. If we assume that John was about 20 when he followed Jesus, and was about 75-80 when he wrote the gospel, don't you think it might have been possible that the man might have learned a thing or two in those 50-60 years? He probably wasn't the same "uneducated fisherman" by the end of his life as he was at age 20 or so.

...
A large portion of scholars therefore accept a connection with John the Apostle for the fourth Gospel. Most posit a community of disciples around the apostle that gave final form to the work. In particular, Chapter 21 is very different stylistically from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition. R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works

---

© source where applicable

Brown's commentary is one of the classics in the field. This is a pretty fair and balanced commentary overall that you cited, but note some of my objections above!

What I believe occured is that John either wrote or dictated his gospel around AD 85-90, but it was later edited somewhat (possibly including the addition of chapter 21) by his disciples.

Thank you all for the responses. I didn't expect so much so soon and haven't read them yet, hence, no more questions or comments at this time. I did find something that I'd like an opinion on, but it will have to wait until later today or tomorrow.

Special note to Amazing Rando,

I do hope that this note does not move this topic in another direction but I wanted to ask you a favor. Yesterday I read the topic "Christian Canon: Authorship of Matthew (and various other topics)." In this topic you said:

"Ray- that's a good observation. Check out this thread in which I argue my own alternative thesis- i.e. that Matthew was behind the sayings source known as Q, and that the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed by a disciple of Matthew's, using Q and Mark."

I would like to read your alternative thesis but couldn't access the link. Would it be possible for you to post it here or provide a link to your thesis that I can access?

The topic as well as this one is of special interest to me.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Christian2

Thank you all for the responses. I didn't expect so much so soon and haven't read them yet, hence, no more questions or comments at this time. I did find something that I'd like an opinion on, but it will have to wait until later today or tomorrow.

Special note to Amazing Rando,

I do hope that this note does not move this topic in another direction but I wanted to ask you a favor. Yesterday I read the topic "Christian Canon: Authorship of Matthew (and various other topics)." In this topic you said:

"Ray- that's a good observation. Check out this thread in which I argue my own alternative thesis- i.e. that Matthew was behind the sayings source known as Q, and that the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed by a disciple of Matthew's, using Q and Mark."

I would like to read your alternative thesis but couldn't access the link. Would it be possible for you to post it here or provide a link to your thesis that I can access?

The topic as well as this one is of special interest to me.

Thank you.

Sure- I'll repost it here for ya. I inadvertantly posted it in a moderator-only forum!

Just gimmie a minute to find it.

Here we go:

Very cool! Well, here's the bare bones of my theory in short-

1. I'm inclined to agree with many biblical scholars that the canonical gospel of Matthew utilizes the text of canonical Mark as one of its sources, and that Matthew also shares a body of mostly oral teachings in common with Luke- what has been commonly called "Q."

2. I value Papias' observations (and those of the rest of the early church) that note that "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." The Greek term he uses for "oracles" is λογια, which implies oral sayings.

3. In light of both of the above (and noting the common strain of the "oral sayings" in the Matthean tradition), I conclude that the apostle Matthew was the source of the sayings collection that has come to be known as "Q," and that his source was utilized by both Luke and the author of canonical Mathew.

4. That leaves the author of canonical Matthew to be an anonymous Jewish Christian, probably a disciple of Matthew the apostle, who utilized both Mark's gospel and the logia (sayings) recorded by Matthew to compose his gospel.

5. This theory makes sense to me because it sufficiently accounts for the available evidence (both internal and external), is faithful to church tradition, and it is highly likely that both Luke and the author of Matthew would have utilized mostly apostolic sources in composing their gospels- Q, coming from Matthew, and Mark, which traditionally is associated with Peter's authority.

So what do you think? Any or all of the above are certainly up for discussion.

I've actually written a long paper (10 pages or so) for class on the topic where I flesh the theory out a bit.

Amazing Rando,

Thanks for taking the time to do this for me.

"So what do you think? Any or all of the above are certainly up for discussion."

Let me digest it for a while. Would you mind it I posted it on a discussion board to a friend of mine who graduated seminary and ask for his opinion?

You said: "I've actually written a long paper (10 pages or so) for class on the topic where I flesh the theory out a bit."

Could/you would you post the 10 pages?

At this point in time I think that "Q" is just a theory and nothing more. I did read "The Case Against "Q" on the internet. http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/

I also believe in the primacy of Matthew and not Mark.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

The two references to the Beloved Disciple that are pertinant to questions of authorship come in John 19:35 and 21:24, which both claim that the Beloved Disciple is the main source (if not the only source) from which the gospel was composed. They may or may not claim that the disciple actually wrote the gospel, but at the very least, they say that he is the source of the tradition contained in the gospel.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see any reference to "the beloved disciple" in 19:35. That disciple is mentioned a couple of verses earlier, but as I read it nothing indicates that the one mentioned testifying in 19:35 is the same or even that he is a disciple. I'd rather say the opposite; 19:35 says the writer records the testimony of a witness of the crucifixion. And since the beloved disciple was also present it's unlikely that the writer was that disciple. Why would the writer quote a witness if he was there himself?

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Christian2

Amazing Rando,

Thanks for taking the time to do this for me.

"So what do you think? Any or all of the above are certainly up for discussion."

Let me digest it for a while. Would you mind it I posted it on a discussion board to a friend of mine who graduated seminary and ask for his opinion?

That would be fine. I originally developed this thesis as part of my own seminary class last year.

You said: "I've actually written a long paper (10 pages or so) for class on the topic where I flesh the theory out a bit."

Could/you would you post the 10 pages?

I could, but it'd probably exceed the character limit. If you'd like I could email it to you.

At this point in time I think that "Q" is just a theory and nothing more. I did read "The Case Against "Q" on the internet. http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/

I also believe in the primacy of Matthew and not Mark.

Thanks again.

St. Augustine did too, so you're in good company. We just happen to disagree.

Originally posted by cavegirl

I may be missing something here, but I don't see any reference to "the beloved disciple" in 19:35.

Not explicitly. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions?

That disciple is mentioned a couple of verses earlier, but as I read it nothing indicates that the one mentioned testifying in 19:35 is the same or even that he is a disciple.

Let's take a look then. Here's the whole passage:

John 19

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

So we've got the beloved disciple present at the foot of the cross. So far so good.

John 19

28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

It's pretty apparent to me that "the man who saw it" in verse 35 is referring to the beloved disciple from verse 26. That's the most likely scenario, because the only other men that have been mentioned between that reference and verse 35 are Pilate, the soldiers, and the men crucified with Jesus (and they're dead!)

I'd rather say the opposite; 19:35 says the writer records the testimony of a witness of the crucifixion. And since the beloved disciple was also present it's unlikely that the writer was that disciple. Why would the writer quote a witness if he was there himself?

Any thoughts?

This may be the hand of the later editor I mentioned shaping the text. There's really no way to know with certainty, unfortunately. They way it reads to me, it says that the beloved disciple witnessed the crucifxion (verse 26) and later he "gave the testimony" in verse 35. This, I see as an acknowledgement to the source of the story, the beloved disciple.