Who really wrote the writings of John?

[polonius]

One of the Gospels (all of which were written anonymously) and the three letters of John, and the Book of Revelation are associated with the name "John."

But how many (if any) were written by John the Apostle and hence are eyewitness accounts?

Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

One of the Gospels (all of which were written anonymously) and the three letters of John, and the Book of Revelation are associated with the name "John."

But how many (if any) were written by John the Apostle and hence are eyewitness accounts?

Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

The author of Gospel John does not identify himself, and there is absolutely no thread of evidence which connects the Gospel of John to the apostle John. The author of Gospel John has been declared to have been the apostle entirely as a matter of Christian tradition. Basically wishful thinking.

Wikipedia
Gospel of John
Authorship, date, and origin
The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24, who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by many modern biblical scholars. Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the definitive name of the author is still debated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Second century Christian historian Papias indicated that there were two distinct individuals named John in the early church, the apostle John, known as the evangelist, and a second John known as the Presbyter, or elder. Papias knew this second John personally.

Writings of Papias:

One
"I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html[/quote]

And while it is true that the author of the Gospel did not identify himself, it is also true that the author of the Epistles of John DID identify himself.

2John.1
[1] The elder (presbyter) unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3John.1
[1] The elder (presbyter) unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

John the elder, or presbyter, and not John the evangelist.

[1213]

...
Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

Why believe it was written about 95 AD?

[polonius]

...
Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

Why believe it was written about 95 AD?

RESPONSE:

The Gospel of John reports the exclusion of the Christians from the Jewish synagogues. This occurred following the Jews declaring Christians apostates in the Jewish 12th Benediction written about 85 AD.

[polonius]

One of the Gospels (all of which were written anonymously) and the three letters of John, and the Book of Revelation are associated with the name "John."

But how many (if any) were written by John the Apostle and hence are eyewitness accounts?

Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

The author of Gospel John does not identify himself, and there is absolutely no thread of evidence which connects the Gospel of John to the apostle John. The author of Gospel John has been declared to have been the apostle entirely as a matter of Christian tradition. Basically wishful thinking.

Wikipedia
Gospel of John
Authorship, date, and origin
The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24, who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by many modern biblical scholars. Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the definitive name of the author is still debated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Second century Christian historian Papias indicated that there were two distinct individuals named John in the early church, the apostle John, known as the evangelist, and a second John known as the Presbyter, or elder. Papias knew this second John personally.

Writings of Papias:

One
"I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

And while it is true that the author of the Gospel did not identify himself, it is also true that the author of the Epistles of John DID identify himself.

2John.1
[1] The elder (presbyter) unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3John.1
[1] The elder (presbyter) unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

John the elder, or presbyter, and not John the evangelist.[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Excellent. You are correct! Now for somewhat of a more difficult question. Who was the "beloved disciple" referred to in John's Gospel?

[Mithrae]

And while it is true that the author of the Gospel did not identify himself, it is also true that the author of the Epistles of John DID identify himself.

Partly true. 1 John lacks the identification which you have quoted from 2 and 3 John, suggesting on face value that the latter two letters were written by a different author.

On the other hand, 1 John shares some obvious similarities of style and content with the gospel - even reading the opening verses of each shows that plainly enough - suggesting (again on face value) that the gospel and 1st epistle were written by the same author.

Both the gospel (eg. John 1:14) and the epistle (1 John 1:3) claim to have been written by a witness of Jesus' life. The appendix to the gospel contains apparently very early additional confirmation of that eyewitness claim (John 21:24; note also the contrast in tenses between that and 19:35).

Furthermore, unlike the other three gospels, in the case of John there is explicit attribution of authorship earlier than Irenaeus' famous list and - most surprisingly of all - these earlier attributions come from radically diverse Christians, gnostics rather than the proto-orthodox:

• There is evidence of the gospel's use in gnostic circles in the 2nd century:
  By Heracleon c. 170CE
  By the 'Peratae,' mentioned by Hippolytus c. 210-230CE
  By the Valentinians as described by Irenaeus c. 180CE
  However according to Irenaeus the Valentinians acknowledged John as the author:
  • 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God...
  Similarly, Heracleon attributes the gospel to a disciple of Jesus:
  • The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him knownâ€�, were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.

These early and diverse attributions of the gospel - by the author of the appendix, by the Valentinians, by Heracleon and finally by Irenaeus and other proto-orthodox writers of the late 2nd century - provide robust, unanimous confirmation of the gospel and epistles' own claims to have been written by an eyewitness.

Finally, the three synoptic gospels and Acts all identify Peter, James and John as Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples, and even Paul's letters (Gal. 2:9) confirm the ongoing prominence of Peter and John (James of Zebedee having died in the mid 40s CE, Acts 12:2). Of the earliest sources on Jesus' ministry, the fourth gospel is conspicuous in mentioning only two prominent disciples and naming only one of those: Peter, along with the "disciple Jesus loved." This textual characteristic is best explained if the author were in fact John, choosing not to write about his dead brother.

[polonius]

Can anyone provide any internal evidence from John's gospel itself indicating who the true author was?

[Willum]

...
Lets start with the Gospel of John written about 95 AD.

Why believe it was written about 95 AD?

Exactly.
All previous editions were destroyed by the Council of Nicaea, we have no reason to believe any of the "original" scripture - assuming there was any, was retained.

Investigation into OT literature finds similar discrepancies.

To me, IMHO, this means that the "truths" provided by these works are clouded in so much doubt and obscurity, one might as well worship Crom from Robert E Howard novels.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius.advice]

Excellent. You are correct! Now for somewhat of a more difficult question. Who was the "beloved disciple" referred to in John's Gospel?

John.20:
[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.

John.21:
[7] Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
[20] Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Mark 14: (at Gethsemane)
[51] And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[52] And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

It has been suggested that the naked young man at Gethsemane and the "disciple whom Jesus loved " are the same person. Literally Jesus' lover. According to "Christian tradition," the apostle John was quite young, a mere youth, when he met and followed Jesus. As he would have had to have been to still be alive and the turn of the century when Gospel John was written. Is there any reason to suppose that the young John was Jesus' homosexual lover? About as much reason as there is to suppose that the apostle John wrote the Gospel According to John. In other words, slim and none. But those who find a purpose served in believing that any of these things are factually true will choose to believe them because it pleases them to do so.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

And while it is true that the author of the Gospel did not identify himself, it is also true that the author of the Epistles of John DID identify himself.

Partly true. 1 John lacks the identification which you have quoted from 2 and 3 John, suggesting on face value that the latter two letters were written by a different author.

On the other hand, 1 John shares some obvious similarities of style and content with the gospel - even reading the opening verses of each shows that plainly enough - suggesting (again on face value) that the gospel and 1st epistle were written by the same author.

Both the gospel (eg. John 1:14) and the epistle (1 John 1:3) claim to have been written by a witness of Jesus' life. The appendix to the gospel contains apparently very early additional confirmation of that eyewitness claim (John 21:24; note also the contrast in tenses between that and 19:35).

Furthermore, unlike the other three gospels, in the case of John there is explicit attribution of authorship earlier than Irenaeus' famous list and - most surprisingly of all - these earlier attributions come from radically diverse Christians, gnostics rather than the proto-orthodox:

• There is evidence of the gospel's use in gnostic circles in the 2nd century:
  By Heracleon c. 170CE
  By the 'Peratae,' mentioned by Hippolytus c. 210-230CE
  By the Valentinians as described by Irenaeus c. 180CE
  However according to Irenaeus the Valentinians acknowledged John as the author:
  • 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God...
  Similarly, Heracleon attributes the gospel to a disciple of Jesus:
  • The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him knownâ€�, were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.

These early and diverse attributions of the gospel - by the author of the appendix, by the Valentinians, by Heracleon and finally by Irenaeus and other proto-orthodox writers of the late 2nd century - provide robust, unanimous confirmation of the gospel and epistles' own claims to have been written by an eyewitness.

Finally, the three synoptic gospels and Acts all identify Peter, James and John as Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples, and even Paul's letters (Gal. 2:9) confirm the ongoing prominence of Peter and John (James of Zebedee having died in the mid 40s CE, Acts 12:2). Of the earliest sources on Jesus' ministry, the fourth gospel is conspicuous in mentioning only two prominent disciples and naming only one of those: Peter, along with the "disciple Jesus loved." This textual characteristic is best explained if the author were in fact John, choosing not to write about his dead brother.

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong. And of course experts have long debunked the notion that the author of Revelation and the other works attributed to John the apostle were written by the same hand.

Partly true. 1 John lacks the identification which you have quoted from 2 and 3 John, suggesting on face value that the latter two letters were written by a different author.

I am not sure it "suggests that" at all. The author of Gospel John did not identify himself either, other than to testify that he was a disciple of Jesus and to assert that the things he had written were true.

Luke.10
[1] After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Act 1:
[15] And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Jesus had disciples above the select twelve, according to the NT. The author of Gospel John identifies himself as a disciple of Jesus, not as one of the twelve.

This textual characteristic is best explained if the author were in fact John, choosing not to write about his dead brother.

That the "textual characteristic is best explained if the author were in fact John," is no more factually accurate than by making the claim that the Gospels indicate that the apostle that Jesus loved was his homosexual lover, the youthful John. There is no actual direct support for any of this. Only inference, and the attempts by those with a specific motivation to make the NT conform to their predetermined conclusions. It has currently become popular to "suggest" that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' wife. But the NT really does not support that conclusion either.