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.

[polonius]

The funny thing in all this is that many folk (including TotN in post #19) seem much more willing to positively entertain the possibilities of Mark or Luke being the authors of their respective gospels than John: And yet as far as I can see, John is actually the gospel for which the evidence of authorship is strongest.

Consider: Is there anything in the text of Mark itself which suggests Mark as the author? Or Luke? Nope, not as far as I know (besides, arguably and very vaguely, the "we passages" in Acts). By contrast both John and its appendix identify the author as one of Jesus' closest disciples - the one that Jesus loved - and the pairing with Peter and silence about John's brother suggest (albeit weakly) the specific identity of that disciple.

And is there any clear external identification of gospel with author for Mark earlier than Irenaeus'? Papias says Mark wrote a gospel, but in extant material doesn't provide enough information to actually identify the text; I haven't read of any other early specific attribution. Same for Luke, without even the Papias thread. Whereas John actually has two attributions with quotation/identification prior to Irenaeus (Ptolemy and Heracleon), from a very different branch of the early Christian faith no less!

Finally, the very fact that John was (probably) the last canonical gospel written and (obviously) the most divergent of the four makes its early, widespread acceptance surprising enough in itself; not exactly evidence, but a small puzzle readily explained if its author was prominent enough to warrant that acceptance. (Arguably, this final point might be paired against the 'criterion of embarrassment' in the case of Mark and Luke; the view that the relative humble nature of those attributions makes them more plausible.)

RESPONSE:

1. The Gospel we call John's was written anonymously.

2. The term "Beloved disciple" is not added until after the death of Lazarus who the writer tells us was the disciple that Jesus loved.

3. John's gospel reports a different day for the crucifixion of Jesus than do Matthew, Mark, or Luke. (One would expect an eye-witness to recall such an important date)

4. John's gospel has no Last Supper Eucharist account.

5. The beloved disciple took Mary into his home "within an hour." Lazarus lived in Bethany which is within a hour's walk from Jerusalem. The apostle John would have lived in Galilee, a three day's journey away.

See also the Secret Gospel of Mark

[Goose]

1. The Gospel we call John's was written anonymously.

Thats not much of an argument. Most ancient biographies were, strictly speaking, written anonymously.

2. The term "Beloved disciple" is not added until after the death of Lazarus who the writer tells us was the disciple that Jesus loved.

The GoJohn never says Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. In fact, Lazarus is never directly referred to as one of Jesus disciples. He was simply described as a man by the author and referred to merely as our friend by Jesus when speaking to his disciples (John 11:11). He wasnt listed by any of the Gospel writers as being present at the last supper either. What the GoJohn does say is that Lazarus was loved by Jesus. But it also says Jesus loved Mary and Martha too.

Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. " John 11:5-6

Apparently Jesus loved the whole family.

3. John's gospel reports a different day for the crucifixion of Jesus than do Matthew, Mark, or Luke. (One would expect an eye-witness to recall such an important date)

Not sure what you mean by a different day. All four Gospels have the crucifixion taking place the day before the Sabbath.

4. John's gospel has no Last Supper Eucharist account.

True no introduction of a Holy Communion. But it does have their last supper together (ch 13, 21:20).

5. The beloved disciple took Mary into his home "within an hour." Lazarus lived in Bethany which is within a hour's walk from Jerusalem. The apostle John would have lived in Galilee, a three day's journey away.

The text doesnt say within an hour. It says...

And from [] that hour the disciple took her into his own home. " John 19:27

[Willum]

So, I've been following this post off and on...

Did we arrive at any other conclusions then?:

We don't have any clue therefore...

1. we should believe it unquestionably.
2. we shouldn't believe them.

[Goose]

1. The Gospel we call John's was written anonymously.

Thats not much of an argument. Most ancient biographies were, strictly speaking, written anonymously.

2. The term "Beloved disciple" is not added until after the death of Lazarus who the writer tells us was the disciple that Jesus loved.

The GoJohn never says Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. In fact, Lazarus is never directly referred to as one of Jesus disciples. He was simply described as a man by the author and referred to merely as our friend by Jesus when speaking to his disciples (John 11:11). He wasnt listed by any of the Gospel writers as being present at the last supper either. What the GoJohn does say is that Lazarus was loved by Jesus. But it also says Jesus loved Mary and Martha too.

Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. " John 11:5-6

Apparently Jesus loved the whole family.

3. John's gospel reports a different day for the crucifixion of Jesus than do Matthew, Mark, or Luke. (One would expect an eye-witness to recall such an important date)

Not sure what you mean by a different day. All four Gospels have the crucifixion taking place the day before the Sabbath.

4. John's gospel has no Last Supper Eucharist account.

True no introduction of a Holy Communion. But it does have their last supper together (ch 13, 21:20).

5. The beloved disciple took Mary into his home "within an hour." Lazarus lived in Bethany which is within a hour's walk from Jerusalem. The apostle John would have lived in Galilee, a three day's journey away.

The text doesnt say within an hour. It says...

And from [] that hour the disciple took her into his own home. " John 19:27

A further clarification on this last point.

-- - -- - - - -- " John 19:27

The word home isnt in the Greek text and its occurrence in our English translations shouldnt be taken to mean a literal house necessarily. The Greek text ends with which has a much broader meaning than home. It means ones own. Compare for example Johns use of this word at 13:1, 15:19, etc. In other words, from that hour onwards the disciple took Jesus mother into his own to care for her.

If the author had meant taken to a literal house somewhere in Jerusalem (or nearby) he could have used the word which means a material building.

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:

1. The Gospel we call John's was written anonymously.

Goose posted

Thats not much of an argument. Most ancient biographies were, strictly speaking, written anonymously.

RESPONSE: So there in no written evidence that John claimed authorship, right?


Quote:
2. The term "Beloved disciple" is not added until after the death of Lazarus who the writer tells us was the disciple that Jesus loved.

The GoJohn never says Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. In fact, Lazarus is never directly referred to as one of Jesus disciples. He was simply described as a man by the author and referred to merely as our friend by Jesus when speaking to his disciples (John 11:11). He wasnt listed by any of the Gospel writers as being present at the last supper either. What the GoJohn does say is that Lazarus was loved by Jesus. But it also says Jesus loved Mary and Martha too.

RESPONSE: Gospel of John 11:1-3 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus,[a] Lord, he whom you love is ill.(NRSV)

3. John's gospel reports a different day for the crucifixion of Jesus than do Matthew, Mark, or Luke. (One would expect an eye-witness to recall such an important date)

Not sure what you mean by a different day. All four Gospels have the crucifixion taking place the day before the Sabbath.

RESPONSE:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus crucified on the Passover, John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the Day before Passover.


1 John 19:14-16:
"Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, Behold, your King! So they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him! Pilate *said to them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified."

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus; last supper is clearly a Passover meal (Matt.26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-16). Therefore, the crucifixion and death of Jesus takes place AFTER the passover meal. In Johns gospel, the last supper is described as a meal that takes place BEFORE the Passover (John 13:1This enables John to make the theological and spiritual point that Jesus, the true Lamb of God, dies at the exact hour that the lambs that will be used for the Passover meals are being sacrificed in the Temple.
(Hint: Also note that a Sabbath is not always a Saturday.)


Quote:
5. The beloved disciple took Mary into his home "within an hour." Lazarus lived in Bethany which is within a hour's walk from Jerusalem. The apostle John would have lived in Galilee, a three day's journey away.

The text doesnt say within an hour. It says...

And from [] that hour the disciple took her into his own home. " John 19:27

RESPONSE: From that hour is obviously within that hour (or it would be the next hour). It is not three days away in Galilee where John lived.

and G2398 is translated:

personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property.

[Goose]

RESPONSE: So there in no written evidence that John claimed authorship, right?

As in something like, Hi, Im John a disciple of Jesus and I am writing this biography about Jesus in the Gospel itself? No, nothing like that. But like I said, ancient biographers generally didnt do that in their biographies. Do you have an argument to make?

RESPONSE: Gospel of John 11:1-3 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus,[a] Lord, he whom you love is ill.(NRSV)

Yeah I said that. I also said just two verses later the text says Jesus loved Mary and Martha along with Lazarus (11:5). But you dont seem to have a counter argument to that. Maybe Martha was the author since Jesus loved her. Or maybe it was Mary.

Where does John say Lazarus was a disciple? He doesnt. And thats significant because the author is the disciple whom Jesus loved. Not just one whom Jesus loved.

RESPONSE:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus crucified on the Passover, John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the Day before Passover.

Are you sure about that?

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. " Mark 15:42-43

RESPONSE: From that hour is obviously within that hour (or it would be the next hour). It is not three days away in Galilee where John lived.

Oh yeah, its so obvious that not a single English version translates it that way. From that hour doesnt mean within an hour. From that hour means from that time onward. Your argument makes it sound like they were walking around wearing wrist watches for goodness sake.

and G2398 is translated:

personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property.

Right. Demolishing your argument.

You want to argue John meant the disciple whom Jesus loved took Jesus mother to his literal house when he used even though John never uses that word in the context of a physical dwelling in any of the other ten places he uses it in his Gospel - 4:44, 5:43, 7:18, 8:44, 10:3-4 (twice), 10:12, 13:1, 15:19, and 16:32. Of those other ten occurrences in John of 10:3-4, 10:12, 13:1, 15:19, 16:32 are all in the context of ones own family or people.

Pay particular attention to John 16:32 as it uses the very same terminology as 19:27 " i.e. .

Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own[ ], and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me." John 16:32

The weight of evidence and the context of 19:27 seem to make it quite clear John meant that from that moment the disciple whom Jesus loved took Jesus mother into his own family presumably to care for her. This interpretation makes much better sense than yours of Jesus odd preceding words...

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, Woman, here is your son. Then he said to the disciple, Here is your mother.

Like I said, if John had literally meant taken to a physical house he could have used in conjunction with as Paul does in his first letter to Timothy 5:4.

Even if we grant John meant literally taken to the disciples home you are assuming John could not have had a home somewhere in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think that.

As a final note here. You seem to be arguing for Lazarus as the author. Even granting this strained theory Lazarus still represents a contemporary and eyewitness to Jesus. A source who was close to Jesus and who knew those who knew Jesus. All wed have to say is that the later church tradition was wrong in its ascribing authorship to the apostle John.

[polonius]

Where does John say Lazarus was a disciple? He doesnt. And thats significant because the author is the disciple whom Jesus loved. Not just one whom Jesus loved.

RESPONSE: John didn't say anything since he didn't write the Gospel of John as has been demonstrated in an earlier response.

Lazarus wasnt an Apostle or a full time companion of Jesus.


Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus crucified on the Passover, John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the Day before Passover.

Are you sure about that?

RESPONSE: Yes. Ive read the Gospels. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus; last supper is clearly a Passover meal (Matt.26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-16). Therefore, the crucifixion and death of Jesus takes place AFTER the passover meal. In Johns gospel, the last supper is described as a meal that takes place BEFORE the Passover (John 13:1).

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Mark 15:42-43



RESPONSE: From that hour is obviously within that hour (or it would be the next hour). It is not three days away in Galilee where John lived.

Oh yeah, its so obvious that not a single English version translates it that way. From that hour doesnt mean within an hour. From that hour means from that time onward. Your argument makes it sound like they were walking around wearing wrist watches for goodness sake.

RESPONSE: Maybe they wore sundials! From that hour and within that hour have the same meaning. A later hour is not described much less a three day trip to Galilee. Again, Bethany, the home of Lazarus is within a hours walk from Jerusalem.

As a final note here. You seem to be arguing for Lazarus as the author. Even granting this strained theory Lazarus still represents a contemporary and eyewitness to Jesus. A source who was close to Jesus and who knew those who knew Jesus. All wed have to say is that the later church tradition was wrong in its ascribing authorship to the apostle John.

RESPONSE: Yes, the "later church" was wrong.

Lazarus was a disciple not an Apostle. He did not spend all his time with Jesus. He was not a witness to everything they were. (But in fact, none of the gospel writers were actually Apostles)


The Term Disciple and the Concept of Discipleship
1B. BASIC MEANING OF
The Greek term - (math"t"s) refers generally to any student, pupil, apprentice, or adherent, as opposed to a teacher. In the ancient world, however, it is most often associated, with people who were devoted followers of a great religious leader or teacher of philosophy.

Yeah I said that. I also said just two verses later the text says Jesus loved Mary and Martha along with Lazarus (11:5). But you dont seem to have a counter argument to that. Maybe Martha was the author since Jesus loved her. Or maybe it was Mary.

RESPONSE: Maybe Mary Magdalene was the author. Some claim that. Perhaps youd like to consult the secret Gospel of Mark who notes in his original gospel about the youth who ran away from Jesus arrest naked.

http://www.historian.net/secmark.htm

As a final note here. You seem to be arguing for Lazarus as the author. Even granting this strained theory Lazarus still represents a contemporary and eyewitness to Jesus. A source who was close to Jesus and who knew those who knew Jesus. All wed have to say is that the later church tradition was wrong in its ascribing authorship to the apostle John.

RESPONSE: Church tradition is not infrequently wrong.

Nowhere is it reported that Lazarus always traveled with the Apostles or even spend much time with them. Once again, Lazarus was a disciple, not an Apostle. You are making the error in logic of going from the particular to the general.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 29 by Mithrae]

As I've already said, for as long as you maintain this mindset that 'Christian tradition' is a monolithic entity to be accepted or mistrusted wholesale, discussion is futile. Nevertheless...

In c. 175-185CE in Lyons, Irenaeus attributed four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
In c. 182-202CE in Alexandria, Clement likewise attributed four gospels to those authors
In c. 197-220CE in Carthage, Tertullian again attributed four gospels to the same authors
In c. 170-200CE, the Muratorian canon named four gospels' authors, of which the third and fourth (the ones left in the fragment) are Luke and John
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

These are relatively close dates and those are far-flung locations: To imagine that this notion not only of a four-gospel canon but the specific identities of the authors developed independently in isolated communities would be absurd. On the contrary, many early Christian communities communicated with each other both in writing and through traveling representatives, a model we see already developing in the New Testament period. Information was passed down through the years and around between the churches.

But I think you're partly right that there was probably less formalized doctrinal cohesion and canons of new Scripture in the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, when churches could simply send to ask what the leaders appointed by the apostles themselves had to say, rather than reading dry and potentially ambiguous (or even tampered-with) words copied again and again. From what I gather the earliest known attempt at a specifically Christian canon was made by Marcion in the mid 2nd century (c. 130-140): His doctrines were deemed heretical by the Christians whose views helped shape the eventual orthodoxy, but rejecting Marcion's canon spurred discussion and the need for clarification on what new 'scriptures' Christians should accept.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies is the earliest surviving attribution of all four gospels, perhaps in part simply because most ancient works haven't survived into our time. But as I've already noted, in the case of John at least the Valentinians Ptolemy (c. 140-160) and Heracleon (c. 150-180) identified the author even earlier than that; Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) in various places quotes from "the memoirs of the apostles" segments which seem to come from each of the four canon gospels; and even earlier than that, as you've suggested, Papias (c. 110-140) wrote about gospels written by Matthew and Mark. Each of these authors and others had their own reasons, sources of information and biases for whatever they wrote, but they all contribute evidence towards what we might understand of the movement's origins.

That available evidence is fragmentary enough as it is: Trying to reduce it all into some simplistic concept of 'Christian tradition' does abuse to the whole concept of enquiry and evidence itself.

For example, it is in part precisely on the basis of this early Christian evidence that we know that canonical Matthew was not written by the apostle: Our earliest source Papias suggests of the apostle's work that it was a) written in the Hebrew tongue and b) consisted of the sayings of Jesus. (Even Irenaeus declared that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue, though he also explicitly identifies the canonical work.) Neither of those descriptors fit the canonical work, and scholarship suggesting that canonical Matthew is largely copied from Mark further supports the conclusion that it is unlikely a witness account. However that very same scholarship also suggests the existence of a sayings source, Q, which like Mark may have been a source for 'Matthew' and Luke (and the later-discovered gospel of Thomas provided another, extant example of a sayings collection). Q itself must have been in Greek - otherwise there would have been noticeable differences in the translations of 'Matthew' and Luke - but it's quite possible that Q was a translation of the apostle Matthew's "sayings of Jesus" in Hebrew which Papias knew of. Its incorporation into canonical Matthew would also help explain why a work with such a noteworthy author was otherwise lost and misidentified.

So in that case, the monolithic 'Christian tradition' of imagination is evidently incorrect - canonical Matthew was not written by the apostle - but the actual source material and earliest evidence not only remains unimpugned, but may actually provide valuable insight into the historical reality. Nothing in ancient history is certain of course, least of all such fine details as exactly who wrote what, but where actual historical and textual evidence are available and in agreement - as in the case of 'Matthew,' refuting later popular beliefs, and as in the case of John confirming them - the appropriate response is to acknowledge that balance of evidence (while remembering the uncertainties). Not to wholesale dismiss 'Christian tradition' because you don't like the conclusion!

In fact YOU dismissed Christian tradition when you indicated that Gospel John and Epistles 2 John and 3 John were not uniformly written by the apostle.

The funny thing in all this is that many folk (including TotN in post #19) seem much more willing to positively entertain the possibilities of Mark or Luke being the authors of their respective gospels than John: And yet as far as I can see, John is actually the gospel for which the evidence of authorship is strongest.

All four Gospels were written anonymously, and accurately identifying ANY of the authors has long been a problem for Christians. Of the four, the identification of the author of Gospel Mark is the most is the most extensive, such as it is. Christian historian Papais, writing in the first half of the second century, tells us:

"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them." http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eus ... ospels.htm

Compared to information on the authors of the other three Gospels, the information provided by Papias on the author of Gospel Mark is almost voluminous in extent.

The Gospel of Luke is traditionally attributed by Christians to "Luke, the beloved physician," mentioned in Col.4:14. As with Gospel John however there is absolutely no evidence contained in scripture which would serve to connect the physician named Luke mentioned in Galatians and the author of the Gospel traditionally attributed to someone named Luke, other than the name Luke. As we can see from the profusion of Marys listed in the NT, common names were commonly used, just like they are today. Two facts do emerge rather unambiguously concerning the author of Gospel Luke however. The first is the virtually unanimous opinion by scholars and experts that the author of Gospel Luke and the author of Acts of the Apostles are the same person. And it is very clear from the details provided in Acts that the author is an admirer and a disciple of Paul. Paul himself has no claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus and as such neither does his disciple, the author of Gospel Luke and Acts. Whomever he was.

So what is the true nature of the identification of the author of Gospel John?

Wikipedia
Gospel According to John
Composition and setting
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,[15] who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by many modern biblical scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Dictionary of the Bible
John, Gospel of
Authorship, date, and Place of Composition
"Critics who deny or doubt the authorship of of John the apostle raise some difficulties. The internal arguments which are drawn from the advanced Christology and alledged disagreements with the Synoptics are less weighty; one cannot set standards of Christology in advance, and the differences, though real, are not such as to prove that John was not the author. More serious is the contention that Irenaeus in thinking that Polycarp knew John; the letter of Polycarp does not mention his aquaintence with John. Irenaeus also knew john, but according to Eusebius this was not John the apostle, but John the Elder. The residence of John at Ephesus, attested by Ireaneus, is also doubted because it is not mentioned in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians; the argument from silence is subject to caution, but it is not without weight. In addition there is a tradition that John suffered matyrdom under Agrippa with his brother James in 44 and thus could not have lived to the traditional date of the composition of the Gospel. This attested by Philip of Side, (460), by the Byzantine monk George Hamartolos, (9th century) and the Syriac martylogy of 411. These sources are not of impressive reliability, and the silence of tradition elsewhere on the martyrdom of John at this date is also a factor. But these elements must be taken in account in evaluating the tradition of authorship."

"Many modern critics believe that the tradition of the name and the composition at Ephesus around 100 are best preserved by attribution the Gospel not to the apostle, but to John the Elder, mentioned by Papias. An extremely hypothetical reconstruction of this person identifies him with the beloved disciple, scarcely more than a boy, at the time, the son of a priestly family at Jerusalem (thus explaining 18:15f, long a difficulty with trhe authorship of John), the eyewitness of some of the events, all at Jerusalem, who lived to an old age at Ephesus. A response of the Ponifical Biblical Commission of May 29, 1907, denied that the arguments against ther authorship of John are convincing and affirmed the historical charactor of the Gospel." (John, Gospel of; Dictionary of the Bible, by father John L. McKenzie, SJ)

The Gospel According to John is known to have been written by the apostle himself because in 1907 the Catholic church declared that it is so.

May 29, 1907 (ASS 40 [1907] 383f; EB 180ff; Dz 2110)
I: Does the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church dating back to the second century and witnessed to principally : (a) by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, and even by heretics, whose testimonies and allusions must have been derived from the disciples or first successors of the Apostles and so be linked with the very origin of the book; (b) by the name of the author of the fourth Gospel having been at all times and places in the canon and lists of the sacred books; (c) by the most ancient manuscripts of those books and the various versions; (d) by public liturgical use in the whole world from the very beginnings of the Church; prove that John the Apostle and no other is to be acknowledged as the author of the fourth Gospel, and that by an historical argument so firmly established (without reference to theological considerations) that the reasons adduced by critics to the contrary in no way weaken this tradition?
Answer: In the affirmative.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scr ... ission.htm

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus crucified on the Passover, John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the Day before Passover.

None of the gospels actually say Jesus died "on the Passover", they all indicate however he died after the Passover meal on Preparation day.


"The Passover": NISAN 14 and NISAN 15-21: The expression "the passover" was often used to refer to both the passover meal and the 7 day passover celebration (the festival of unleaven bread). Mark, writing primarily for a non-Jewish readership which would have been unfamiliar with the terms, helpfully makes the distinction between the two in Mark 14 verse 1 explaining "Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread was two days later" Because of their closeness on the calendar, the entire festival and passover meals were often included in the term The Passover

We do a similar thing today with when we refer to "Christmas", the expression "spending Christmas with the family" might not necessarily refer only to spending 25th December but could refer to the day before (Christmas Eve) the day itself (Christmas day) and possibly to the day after (UK "boxing day).

Passover MEAL(s) NISAN 14 and NISAN 15: According to Jewish Biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim:

"A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate" " The Temple, 1874, pp. 186, 187 Thus if Jesus died after eating the "passover meal" but before the first day of the festival (Nisan 15) it would explain John's terminology and harmonize with the other accounts.

Preparation of "the Passover" NISAN 14: John also explains it was "preparation of the passover" (John 19:14) . This expression can be understood to mean that it was the period in "preparation" for the seven-day Festival of Unfermented Cakes (The Passover festival) that began the next day [Nisan 15] (not to be confused with "Preparation" or "the day of Preparation" which was the name designated to the day before any Sabbath* or the passover MEAL which was eaten on Nisan 14).

CONCLUSION: John's gospel harmonizes completely with the other four gospels as it has Jesus dying after the Passover meal of Nisan 14, during the "preparation of the passover" (John 19:14) which was due to start on Nisan 15 on "Preparation" that is the day before the weekly Sabbath.

*Jesus died the day before the weekly Sabbath which also happened to be the day before the start of the 7-day festival (Passover festival), which is why it was called d a "A great Sabbath"

JOHN 19:31
Since it was the day of Preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath day was a great one), the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken away.

MARK 15:42
Now as it was already late in the afternoon, and since it was Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath

LUKE 23:54
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to
THE RANSOM SACRIFICE , THE EXECUTION OF CHRIST and ... MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH

[polonius]

JW posted:

[/quote]CONCLUSION: John's gospel harmonizes completely with the other four gospels as it has Jesus dying after the Passover meal of Nisan 14, during the "preparation of the passover" (Jh 19:14) which was due to start on Nisan 15 on "Preparation" that is the day before the weekly Sabbath.[/quote]

RESPONSE: Absolutely not. The Gospel of John claims that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation , the day before the Passover.

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus; last supper is clearly a Passover meal (Matt.26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-16). Therefore, the crucifixion and death of Jesus takes place AFTER the passover meal.

In Johns gospel, the last supper is described as a meal that takes place BEFORE the Passover (John 13:1This enables John to make the theological and spiritual point that Jesus, the true Lamb of God, dies at the exact hour that the lambs that will be used for the Passover meals are being sacrificed in the Temple.
(Hint: Also note that a Sabbath is not always a Saturday.)

There is controversy among some Christians about the true day of Jesus death. Most people believe that Jesus died on a Friday, but some (Wednesday Crucifixionists) believe that Jesus actually died on a Wednesday. Part of the reason for this belief is that Jesus mentions that, "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40 NKJV). This could mean that Jesus would have died on Wednesday, in order to be entombed for three literal days and three literal nights (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday), and rise on Sunday. Other variations of this belief also exist.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim that Jesus was crucified on Passover. John, on the other had, has Jesus being crucified on the day before the Passover. This is said to be the case since John wanted Jesus to be crucified when the sacrificial lambs ("Behold the Lamb of God") for the Passover were slaughtered.

John 19:14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, Here is your King! 15They cried out, Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him! Pilate asked them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but the emperor. 16Then he handed him over to them to be crucified (NRSV)

Note that in John there is no mention of a Passover Last Supper or Eucharist since Jesus was already dead.

And John's gospel is the only one that allows that Jesus was in the gave for three nights as well as three days - (Sign of Jonah).

However, apologists go to great length trying to prove that the four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on Friday