Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[Flail]

as a trial lawyer schooled in the art of 'evidence', I can tell you that 'eyewitness' testimony repeated after the fact is typically unreliable and suspect.

[Goat]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

Yes, one church father claims it was written in the opposition of Cerinthus, yet another church father claims it was written BY Cerinthus.

from http://www.earlychristianwriting.com/john.html

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

There is an anachronism that is pointed out from that specific source also

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

This points to a later date rather than an earlier date, and to someone who was not in Jerusalem.

[McCulloch]

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

It is important to note that these were not 60 or so years of stability and peace. An active rebellion was taking place against the Romans by the Jews. The Jewish people were in the midst of redefining themselves amid the chaos. The nascent Christian movement must be seen in this historical framework.

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

Most scholars place the writing of John's Gospel in the period between 90 and 100 CE. This would place the recording of these events about forty years after the events were alleged to occur. Would you call a new this year record of the last days of Elvis Presley an eye witness account?

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew

Jerusalem in that time was a remarkably cosmopolitan city. Non-jewish authors could have easily had a familiarity with Jerusalem. Furthermore, John's rather virulent antisemitism points to the fact that it may have been written during that period when early Christianity was establishing its independence from its Jewish roots.

[Cephus]

The Gospel of John is problematic no matter how you look at it. It was written far too late to be a reliable first-person account, having been written somewhere between 90-110CE, more than 60 years after the events. If we presume that the writer of John was a contemporary of Jesus, that would have made him 90+ years old when he wrote it. Not only did people typically not live that long, but mental deterioration is commonplace at that age today, imagine what it would have been like for a hypothetical centurion back in that day.

Further, the Gospel of John simply doesn't agree with the other Gospels in many regards. It's clear that the last chapter of John was written by another author, especially since, in John 21:24, he starts referring to the author in the third person. It's also clear that the writer of John was more interested in tying Christian ideals to pagan beliefs. Jesus, in passages like John 6:33-35, is very much recast in the typical pagan soter-god mold, similar to Dionysus and Osiris. These recastings were so embarassing that Justin Martyr found himself apologizing to his readers for the similarities. The rituals of Dionysus is where Christianity gets the concept of eating the body and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr said “Do you also…believe that we eat human flesh and that after our banquets we extinguish the lights and indulge in unbridled sensuality?� (Trypho 10) and Tertullian likewise wrote, “We are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it…[and] after the feast, we practice incest….� (Apology 39). These ideas are found only in John, who obviously was trying to marry Christian stories to pagan ideals.

I think there's little evidence to show that the writer of John, like the writers of any of the Gospels, were actual eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, writing as factual recorders of history.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think there's little evidence to show that the writer of John, like the writers of any of the Gospels, were actual eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, writing as factual recorders of history.

I agree. WHERE is the evidence that ANY of the "gospel writers" (whoever they may have been) had actual personal knowledge of "Jesus"? Unless they knew PERSONALLY what transpired, they are reporting HEARSAY (something hear from others).

Hearsay is notoriously unreliable (as the party game of "tell your neighbor" illustrates). By the time a statement passes through a few people, it is usually hilariously distorted. Can biblical accounts, written decades or generations after the supposed events, be any more reliable? If so -- WHY?

[Slopeshoulder]

I know first hand that Harvard, Yale, Boston College, Boston University, Weston Jesuit, and Andover Newton divinity schools, and via hearsay and reading that others of their caliber, all teach and assume that none of the gospel authors ever met Jesus, least of all John. (They teach this to people intending to be ordained as ministers FWIW). Rather, the gospel writers were setting down a mix of four things: some probable facts, many myths and legends, the basic beliefs of the oral tradition in the comunity of which they were a part, and their own constructive theological point of view, the latter usually developed in response to a debate within or across the christian community. They each have different emphases. John was writing against gnosticism and probably against thomistic thought, while also reflecting much gnostic influence. He was looking for a sweet spot; the canon editors think he got it. Apologists for Gonosticism and Thomisitc christianity disagree.
Note this: Gospels were never meant to be eyewitness literal accounts, so to claim them or to criticize them as history is to miss the point, as well as to confuse the facts. Their literary form is "gospel" (as described above), not history.

[Mithrae]

Thanks for the responses, everyone

Yes, one church father claims it was written in the opposition of Cerinthus, yet another church father claims it was written BY Cerinthus.

from http://www.earlychristianwriting.com/john.html

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

That's actually a church father claiming that it was not written by Cerinthus. Moreover, Epiphanius was arguing against folk who held that view in the fourth century, nearly 300 years after the gospel was written. To my (admittedly quite limited) knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone claimed Cerinthean authorship for the gospel within 50, 100, even 150 years after it was written. The earliest source identifying the apostle John as the 'beloved disciple' is Irenaeus around 180CE, less than a century after the work was written. But the gospel itself states that it was written by a follower of Christ, rather than by Cerinthus.

As I say, I consider myself nothing more than an intelligent, casual passer-by when it comes to topics such as this, so my views may seem fairly simplistic. But in my opinion, unless there is evidence suggesting that such-and-such a change was made to a text, it doesn't seem entirely appropriate to believe that the change was made. There are several notable such examples throughout the new testament - Mark 16, John 8 and 1 John 5:7 being probably the most notable examples - along with numerous small discrepancies between the manuscript families - a word here or a sentence there. But by the same token, we know that by the late 2nd century the process of assembling and preserving a coherent canon was already well underway within the proto-orthodox church, in large part thanks to Marcion.

In the absense of any actual evidence, I find it hard to imagine that any wholesale revision of the gospel of John could have occurred any later than the 2nd century - and yet it's not 'til some 200 years later that we find evidence of dispute over it's authorship. Indeed, if the hypothetical original work held more docetic themes, it could perhaps be considered strange that Marcion didn't adopt it instead of Luke.

There is an anachronism that is pointed out from that specific source also

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

This points to a later date rather than an earlier date, and to someone who was not in Jerusalem.

That 'anachronism' might seem inconceiveable for anyone familiar with the letters of Paul even, or with the gospel of Mark, and certainly with the book of Acts. All of these paint a very clear picture of the very Jewish origins of Christianity, with tensions only growing as the message continued to be rejected by the majority of Jews. The gospel of John, even more than Luke, is notable for its efforts to remove any blame from the Romans for the death of Jesus, and place it squarely on the Jews' shoulders. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see what significant event might have prompted the nascent Christian movement to seek to distance itself from Judaism and focus more on the conversion of Gentiles. As history, Jesus' followers being put out of the synogogue in his lifetime is a laughable notion regardless of the author - but it fits perfectly with the general theme of the gospel and the likely relations between Christianity and Judaism at the time of writing.

-------------------

Most scholars place the writing of John's Gospel in the period between 90 and 100 CE. This would place the recording of these events about forty years after the events were alleged to occur. Would you call a new this year record of the last days of Elvis Presley an eye witness account?

If the person giving the record had witnessed Elvis Presley's last days with his own eyes, it would seem an accurate description.

Jerusalem in that time was a remarkably cosmopolitan city. Non-jewish authors could have easily had a familiarity with Jerusalem. Furthermore, John's rather virulent antisemitism points to the fact that it may have been written during that period when early Christianity was establishing its independence from its Jewish roots.

As I understand it, even before the first revolt Jerusalem was an out of the way subject city and relatively small compared to the likes of Antioch, Damascus or Caesarea. Folk travelling overland between Egypt and Syria wouldn't pass through it; the regional governments of both the Roman procurators and the Herodian dynasty were based elsewhere; and the region was relatively unstable compared to much of the rest of the empire. As I say my knowledge is quite limited, but I suspect that besides the magnificent temple (which only Jews could enter) there would have been little to recommend Jerusalem or of Judea for visiting or settlement by folk from beyond the immediate region. Some two decades before the gospel was written, the revolt, ensuing war and consequent destruction of the temple would have ensured even less reason to visit. It doesn't matter much of course, but mentioning some detail about a pool in Jerusalem and its customs may be a hint of more than a nodding acquaintance with the region.

As for anti-semitism, see my comments to Goat. The gospel states clearly that Jesus was a Jew, that his disciples were Jews, that they celebrated a Passover meal before his death, that Mary, Martha and Lazarus were Jews... indeed, that the beloved disciple and supposed author of the work was, in fact, a Jew. 'Virulent antisemitism' seems more of a modern catch-phrase than an accurate description for the themes encompassed by a work which seeks to exonerate its Gentile audience from any blame, describe opposition from the Jewish leadership and perhaps help explain the calamity which had befallen the nation not so long before.

-----------------------

The Gospel of John is problematic no matter how you look at it. It was written far too late to be a reliable first-person account, having been written somewhere between 90-110CE, more than 60 years after the events. If we presume that the writer of John was a contemporary of Jesus, that would have made him 90+ years old when he wrote it. Not only did people typically not live that long, but mental deterioration is commonplace at that age today, imagine what it would have been like for a hypothetical centurion back in that day.

It's my understanding that many Jewish men (and women) of the day were likely to be married by the time they were 15 or 16. If we assume that the author of the gospel was around that age when he joined Jesus' followers and that Jesus died in 30 CE, the author may well have been only eighty years old by 92 CE. And yes, mental detioration can be an issue at that age, though not always - at 78 one of my grandfathers is as coherent as ever, while at 82 my other grandfather might struggle to remember last week, but can recall the '30s and '40s like they were only five decades ago

However we're not trying to take a stab in the dark with probabilities here - or at least, I'm not. I'm interested in knowing if there's any evidence which shows that the eyewitness claims of John are false. To my mind, by far the best way to read John 21 is as an explanation/apologetic for the main author's death before Christ's return. Quite frankly, it wouldn't make sense for someone to append that chapter to a work by anyone who wasn't a follower of Christ.

Further, the Gospel of John simply doesn't agree with the other Gospels in many regards. It's clear that the last chapter of John was written by another author, especially since, in John 21:24, he starts referring to the author in the third person. It's also clear that the writer of John was more interested in tying Christian ideals to pagan beliefs. Jesus, in passages like John 6:33-35, is very much recast in the typical pagan soter-god mold, similar to Dionysus and Osiris. These recastings were so embarassing that Justin Martyr found himself apologizing to his readers for the similarities. The rituals of Dionysus is where Christianity gets the concept of eating the body and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr said “Do you also…believe that we eat human flesh and that after our banquets we extinguish the lights and indulge in unbridled sensuality?� (Trypho 10) and Tertullian likewise wrote, “We are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it…[and] after the feast, we practice incest….� (Apology 39). These ideas are found only in John, who obviously was trying to marry Christian stories to pagan ideals.

Arguably, this too would tie in with the gospel's general pattern of distancing itself somewhat from Judaism (so recently the enemy of the Empire) and more closely courting the interest of Gentile readers. But more importantly, from what little I've read on the subject, I suspect that some authors seek to unduly over-emphasise the similarities between early Christianity and pagan practices. In John 6, for example, the reference is to Moses and the bread which came from heaven, coupled with the well-known story of the feeding of five thousand. Even granting the comparison with Dionysus, is the author attempting to integrate the fledgling Christian movement into the pagan mainstream, or is he holding Jesus and the ancient Jewish tradition up as the older, truer spiritual reality of which pagan rituals are merely a pale imitation?

What the gospel does definitely portray is a Jesus with concern for the poor and outcast, who performed miracles yet didn't seek the limelight, whose unorthodox teachings about worship and his own nature put him at odds with the Jewish leaders, to his ultimate and theologically significant demise. As for the difference in style and themes between John and the synoptics, would that be evidence against its claims of authorship even if we were to consider the synoptics to be authoritative regarding Jesus' life? The gospel of Luke begins with explicit claims regarding facts and accuracy; the gospel of John begins with a theological synopsis. Are we really going to expect a dry and accurate history?

------------------

I agree. WHERE is the evidence that ANY of the "gospel writers" (whoever they may have been) had actual personal knowledge of "Jesus"? Unless they knew PERSONALLY what transpired, they are reporting HEARSAY (something hear from others).

Hearsay is notoriously unreliable (as the party game of "tell your neighbor" illustrates). By the time a statement passes through a few people, it is usually hilariously distorted. Can biblical accounts, written decades or generations after the supposed events, be any more reliable? If so -- WHY?

I'm an Aussie, so I know the game as 'Chinese whispers.' But under any name, a party game intended for that very purpose is not exactly a good choice of comparison with the dissemination of articles of faith for which many people were willing to die. While I'm not a Christian and enjoy debating as much as the next man, I've often seen a certain attitude amongst some sceptics which in essence amounts to "I demand absolute proof of everything you claim and I'll belittle everything which doesn't have that proof." I may be mistaken, but on face value this particular analogy seems one such example of that: Comparing articles of faith which invited persecution with a party game?

What I'm wondering is WHERE is the evidence that the author of the fourth gospel was lying in the claim to have witnessed Jesus' death (19:35)? And, perhaps more importantly, how could the appended chapter make any sense if he were lying?

--------------------------

I know first hand that Harvard, Yale, Boston College, Boston University, Weston Jesuit, and Andover Newton divinity schools, and via hearsay and reading that others of their caliber, all teach and assume that none of the gospel authors ever met Jesus, least of all John. (They teach this to people intending to be ordained as ministers FWIW). Rather, the gospel writers were setting down a mix of four things: some probable facts, many myths and legends, the basic beliefs of the oral tradition in the comunity of which they were a part, and their own constructive theological point of view, the latter usually developed in response to a debate within or across the christian community. They each have different emphases. John was writing against gnosticism and probably against thomistic thought, while also reflecting much gnostic influence.

Aside from "least of all John," I wouldn't particularly disagree with any of that. It's worth noting that John's stark difference in style and order from the synoptics, the fact that it was written considerably later than Mark and Matthew, and, not least, the now-discredited views from the 19th century that John was written well into the 2nd century all, in my opinion, make it something of an 'unfashionable' gospel to defend. In looking for the 'historical' Jesus, scholars tend to focus mostly on Mark and Q, which is understandable, but often even give preference to Matthew-, Luke- or even Thomas-specific material over John. For what reason?

John is a work of theology and evangelism of course; the fact that it's not an historical work is blatantly obvious from the first few verses. And as such, as far as 'historical' Jesus studies go, preference for Mark or Q is understandable. And it's possible that the claims to have witnessed Jesus' life and death are false, and even possible that the appended chapter could make sense in such a scenario. But I have yet to see how that's the case and, all questions of possible implications aside, as far as I can see it the evidence seems to suggest that not all of Jesus' followers took their experience of his life to their grave.

[Mithrae]

I agree. Most debaters will probably accept that there is SOME factual, verifiable information contained in bible tales -- about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus" and "god" -- rulers, civilizations, some battles, etc.

However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles -- or even Jesus?

Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional? Mention in tales by storytellers is no assurance that characters in the story actually lived or did as they are purported to have done.

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived. Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9). Since Cephas and James were both dead by the time the fourth gospel was written, that's arguably a good starting point for the argument that the 'beloved disciple' was John by the way - a trivial point, but one I hadn't thought of before now. But given these two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus, it's hard to imagine how anyone could honestly entertain the notion that Jesus didn't exist.

Given that, and the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the first century, it would seem strange indeed if every single one of his followers died without bothering to commit to writing their perceptions and recollections of his ministry. Even in my short time in this forum I've lost count of how many times I've seen you in particular repeating your demands for evidence on some point or another. Granted it's only been 23 hours since my last post, but it seems strange that neither you nor any other have provided any evidence that the fourth gospel is false in its claim to be the product of an eyewitness (and, indeed, the confirmation of that claim by whoever wrote the appended chapter).

[Slopeshoulder]

Your opinions are well intended, but the fact is that modern biblical scholarship disagrees with you on several points.
Yes, all credible scholars agree that these people existed, but also that none of the gospel writers met Jesus, that John is not who you suppose he his. However, the writers were using Q and-or each other, as well as the oral tradition, which itself included people who had met or heard Jesus.
So once again, gospel bible worshippers and bible deniers both get it wrong. Your suppositions are just that, but not born out by scholarship. You seem interested though, so you may wish to read "Introduction to the new testament" by Werner Georg Hummel. For more recent work, Bart Erdman or JD Crossan or Karen King or NT Wright and many others may be helpful. Take a look at Bultmann too.
For Old Testament, textbooks by Bernhard Anderson (undergrad) and Brevard Childs (grad) are tops.