The Gospel Writers

[Realworldjack]

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

[Difflugia]

Using your reasoning, regarding a scholarly consensus being a sufficient bar to establish probability, your original blanket assertion about the probability of all the Gospels authorship looks as though it is false since many scholars, if not a majority of scholars, hold to the traditional authorship of Mark.

So, either you were not aware of the scholarly consensuses on these issues before wading into them or you were aware of the scholarly consensuses on these issues but argued against the majority view anyway implying that, as far as you are concerned, a scholarly consensus is not a sufficient bar to establish probability.

If there is such a consensus, I'm still unaware of it, Stanton's and Licona's assertions notwithstanding.

Whether the landscape changed in intervening years or for some other reason, Stanton revised his statement in the 2002 second edition that I have. The 1989 edition (available for "1-hour checkout" at archive.org) does include the statement you quote, but the same paragraph in the 2002 edition has been modified to remove the reference to "many scholars" and to apparently clarify that Stanton is referring either primarily or exclusively to his own opinion.
1989 first edition:

It is very difficult to judge how much weight should be attached to this statement [by Papias]. If the general approach to Mark's gospel which has been set out in this chapter is correct, then a close link with Peter's preaching seems unlikely. Papias implies that Mark was a translator and an anthologist. As we have tried to show, evidence from within the gospel itself suggests that it has been constructied most carefully and that the author's own distinctive theological stamp can be discerned.

The Mark named by Papias is almost certainly the John Mark frequently mentioned in Acts as an associate of Paul. The early church tended to link the gospels to personal followers of Jesus, but John Mark was neither a disciple of Jesus nor an apostle. Why was his name chosen if there were not good grounds for doing so? Hence many scholars are inclined to accept that John Mark was indeed the author.

In what clearly began as the same thought, the 2002 second edition has dialed that reading back a bit (p. 55):

How much weight should be given to these intriguing comments? My own view is that while they cannot be taken at face value, they do give us some insights into the origin of Marks gospel. The reference to Mark as the author is surely an authentic tradition. The Mark named by Papias is probably the John Mark mentioned in Acts as an associate of Paul (12: 12, 25; 15: 379). John Mark was not a prominent leader in the early church; he was neither a disciple of Jesus nor an apostle. So why was his name chosen if there were not good grounds for naming him as the author of a gospel?

As far as Mike Licona is concerned, I'll just say that I don't trust his scholarship. I don't think that he's lying or anything, but I question both whom he considers scholars and what his threshold is for "accepting" that John Mark wrote Mark.

I checked several sources that I would expect to represent the consensus: The Oxford Bible Commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, The HarperCollins Study Bible, Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, An Introduction to the New Testament by Brown and Soards, and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. All mention the statement of Papias and the traditional attribution to "John Mark," but none offers it as even a minority position among modern scholars. There is obviously at least a small minority; in addition to Stanton, I also found that Martin Hengel wrote in "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ" (The Earliest Gospels, Charles Horton ed., p. 21):

Such connections make it probable that the earliest 'evangelist', Mark, was really a companion and interpreter of Peter. Probably the Greek-Palestinian John Mark from Jerusalem is to be seen as the author. He was acquainted with both Paul and Peter, but was closer to Peter.

Hengel, for completeness, opined that "John the Elder" wrote the Gospel and three Epistles of John, but was not "John the Apostle," son of Zebedee.

[Goose]

As far as Mike Licona is concerned, I'll just say that I don't trust his scholarship. I don't think that he's lying or anything, but I question both whom he considers scholars and what his threshold is for "accepting" that John Mark wrote Mark.

Well Licona said the findings were based on reviews of critical scholars. At least he tried to give some qualification to the majority view he found through his research unlike other assertions we often see regarding majority views. Besides, this cuts both ways. Why dont you apply the same skepticism to any scholar who asserts a majority view on a particular issue? Any time we read something like "most scholars agree" or "the majority of scholars agree" we are encountering an appeal to anonymous authority. We can then ask, who are these anonymous scholars? How many were surveyed? What are their presuppositions? What is the threshold for accepting or rejecting a view? And so on...

I checked several sources that I would expect to represent the consensus: The Oxford Bible Commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, The HarperCollins Study Bible, Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, An Introduction to the New Testament by Brown and Soards, and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. All mention the statement of Papias and the traditional attribution to "John Mark," but none offers it as even a minority position among modern scholars.

I did a quick check of three of your sources here.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 1997.

I cant find where Ehrman says anything about the scholarly consensus on the authorship of Mark at all. I must have missed it or he said in a more recent version. Please feel free to correct me by quoting him with page number.

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament.

Theres no specific treatment of Mark in Metzger's book here as far as I could see. Its a book concerned with the development of the canon focusing primarily on Patristic writers. Again, I didnt see anything on the scholarly consensus regarding the authorship of Mark either. But again, feel free to correct me with quote and page number.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (abridged version, edited by Soards) 2016, p.45

"Mark, the follower and "interpreter" of Peter, usually identified as John Mark of ActsSome who reject this attribution allow that the author may have been an otherwise unknown Christian named Mark."

So unless Im mistaken two of your sources (Metzger, Ehrman) dont even mention the scholarly consensus on Marks authorship and one source (Brown) seems to suggest the traditional position is the "usual" position where "some" who reject the view accept an unknown Mark.

There is obviously at least a small minority; in addition to Stanton, I also found that Martin Hengel wrote in "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ" (The Earliest Gospels, Charles Horton ed., p. 21):

Such connections make it probable that the earliest 'evangelist', Mark, was really a companion and interpreter of Peter. Probably the Greek-Palestinian John Mark from Jerusalem is to be seen as the author. He was acquainted with both Paul and Peter, but was closer to Peter.

Hengel, for completeness, opined that "John the Elder" wrote the Gospel and three Epistles of John, but was not "John the Apostle," son of Zebedee.

You are pressing this majority argument far too hard considering it amounts to purely an argument by assertion at this point and we both know you dont consistently accept the scholarly consensuses as a sufficient bar to establish probability anyway as I showed in my previous post. Between the two of us, over the last few posts, weve listed enough bonafied scholars who hold to the traditional authorship of Mark that I think its fair to say many scholars hold to that position. The traditional position is by no means fringe or discredited having on its side a number of respected scholars. Its simply not sufficient for you to argue from an assertion of a majority when the majority, if it really exists, may only be marginal or even not exist at all, say, in the case of Mark.

Heres something further to consider on this argument from a majority. In its present form as you are presenting it, it assumes a dichotomy: authored by the traditional author or not, either X or not X. In that form its rather trivial to argue the majority holds the view that any particular Gospel was not written by the traditional author since the denial of the traditional position amounts little more than not X and does not in and of itself form a meaningful explanation for who authored the work in question whereas the traditional position does. For instance, even Ben Witherington III would count on the side of denying the traditional authorship of John and so would Hengel. But Witherington and Hengel dont merely deny the traditional position, they hold to other explanations for who wrote the Gospel of John - Lazarus and John the Elder, respectively. Once we nuance the argument to survey alternate explanations for who the work in question that go beyond simply the affirmation or denial of the traditional position we may see that the traditional explanation forms a plurality among explanations argued for by scholars. Frankly, such a survey, in my opinion, would be far more meaningful and carry far more weight than simply a survey of for and against the traditional position.

[Difflugia]

Why dont you apply the same skepticism to any scholar who asserts a majority view on a particular issue?

I apply the skepticism to Mike Licona because he's not writing as a scholar, but as an apologist. The distinction that I'm making is that a scholar attempts to (or is expected to, anyway) defend his or her own position against the strongest case possible, but an apologist works by marshalling evidence specifically in favor of a particular position. Mike Licona and Gary Habermas, for example, have academic credentials, but write and speak primarily or exclusively as apologists. Craig Evans is an example of someone that manages to separate the two successfully enough that he has what amounts to two parallel careers, both as a scholar and an apologist. William Lane Craig is another example of someone with a dual career, writing about philosophy as an academic and Christianity as an apologist.

While I find Christian apologetics interesting and I've learned a lot about Christian history and the Bible from apologetic sources, I don't consider any of it to be trustworthy without verification. The Mike Licona quote you provided is the only statement I've ever seen that claims a majority acceptance of traditional Marcan authorship and he said it in an apologetic context that is somewhat opaque. I wouldn't quote an atheist apologist in a similar situation; either there's a verifiable source for the information and I'd quote that or I wouldn't consider it to be evidence.

I checked several sources that I would expect to represent the consensus: The Oxford Bible Commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, The HarperCollins Study Bible, Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, An Introduction to the New Testament by Brown and Soards, and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. All mention the statement of Papias and the traditional attribution to "John Mark," but none offers it as even a minority position among modern scholars.

I did a quick check of three of your sources here.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 1997.

I cant find where Ehrman says anything about the scholarly consensus on the authorship of Mark at all. I must have missed it or he said in a more recent version. Please feel free to correct me by quoting him with page number.

1997 edition, p. 49:

Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciplesMatthew, the tax-collector, and John, the beloved discipleand by two friends of the apostlesMark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons.

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament.

Theres no specific treatment of Mark in Metzger's book here as far as I could see. Its a book concerned with the development of the canon focusing primarily on Patristic writers. Again, I didnt see anything on the scholarly consensus regarding the authorship of Mark either. But again, feel free to correct me with quote and page number.

Here's the quotation I was referring to. I initially read it as Metzger presenting Papias' comment, but dismissing its overall reliability by relegating it to being an apologetic response to contemporary criticism. On a second reading, I was definitely reading more into it than is there. If I'd read Metzger first, I wouldn't have included it in the list.

pp. 54-55:

Such apologetic interest is still more prominent in his comments on Markshowing that criticisms directed against Mark were more pointed than those directed against Matthew. According to Papias, again as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. III. xxxix. 15),

The presbyter used to say this: Mark, having become Peters interpreter (, perhaps spokesman or secretary) wrote down accurately all that he remembered [of Peters preaching] without, however, recording in order () the things said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who adapted his discourse to the needs ( ) [of his hearers], but not making, as it were, an arrangement () of the Lords sayings, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thingto omit nothing of what he had heard or to falsify anything in them.

From this account we can detect that three criticisms had been raised against Marks Gospel: (a) Mark had not heard Jesus, nor had he followed him. (b) What he wrote lacked order, either rhetorical or chronological. (c) His Gospel is incomplete.

In reply to these criticisms, Papias states that the guaranty of the Gospel is furnished by Peter, and that the conditions under which it was written explain why it is without perfect order and presents some gapswhich are a kind of testimony to Marks honesty in taking down all that Peter was accustomed to preach.

Other scattered evidence preserved by Eusebius, Jerome, Philip of Side, as well as several later Fathers, indicates that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse. As for the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, we hear nothing in the extracts that have happened to survive.

By way of summary, Papias stands as a kind of bridge between the oral and the written stages in the transmission of the gospel tradition. Although he professes to have a marked preference for the oral tradition, one nevertheless sees at work the causes that, more and more, would lead to the rejection of that form of tradition in favour of written gospels. On the whole, therefore, the testimony of Papias concerning the development of the canon of the New Testament is significant chiefly in reflecting the usage of a community in which devotion to oral tradition hindered the development of a clear idea of canonicity.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (abridged version, edited by Soards) 2016, p.45

"Mark, the follower and "interpreter" of Peter, usually identified as John Mark of ActsSome who reject this attribution allow that the author may have been an otherwise unknown Christian named Mark."

So unless Im mistaken two of your sources (Metzger, Ehrman) dont even mention the scholarly consensus on Marks authorship and one source (Brown) seems to suggest the traditional position is the "usual" position where "some" who reject the view accept an unknown Mark.

I read it differently in light of the two sections, "Author by Traditional (Second Century) Attribution," from which you quoted, and the following, "Author Detectable from Contents," which reads:

A Greek-speaker, who was not an eyewitness of Jesus ministry and made inexact statements about Palestinian geography. He drew on preshaped traditions about Jesus (oral and probably written) and addressed himself to a community that seemingly had undergone persecution and failure.

I read the "[s]ome who reject this attribution" to be a second-century "some." I took the wording of the second section to mean that the author was likely neither Palestinian nor entirely reliant on oral tradition, which would preclude Mark being from Jerusalem or "an interpeter of Peter."

I read the sections overall as being an oblique way of making a statement similar to the one from The New Oxford Annotated Bible:

Mark was written anonymously. The designation "according to Mark" was added in the second century CE, as Gospels began to circulate beyond the audiences for whom they were written. One early second-century source claims that "Mark" was the apostle Peter's "interpreter" at the end of Peter's life, but no other evidence confirms that connection. Others have identified Mark as the "John Mark" who traveled with the apostle Paul (see Acts 12.12,25; 15.3739; Col 4.10; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24), but none of these passages link John Mark with a written Gospel.

Though the author's identity is unknown, scholars find clues about its author in the Gospel itself. For example, its awkward style suggests that Greek was not the author's first language. Other details, such as the imprecise citation of Jewish scripture (1.2), the over-generalized portrait of Jewish practice (7.34), and problematic geographical details (5.1,13) suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.

I still think that's an intentional implication of Brown and Soards, but I'll concede that I might be reading too much into it.

You are pressing this majority argument far too hard considering it amounts to purely an argument by assertion at this point and we both know you dont consistently accept the scholarly consensuses as a sufficient bar to establish probability anyway as I showed in my previous post. Between the two of us, over the last few posts, weve listed enough bonafied scholars who hold to the traditional authorship of Mark that I think its fair to say many scholars hold to that position.

Three? That's including Mike Licona as a scholar. Are you including scholars outside of secular scholarship? I wasn't. Andreas Kstenberger, for example, argues for traditional Marcan authorship, but publishes predominantly as an Evangelical Baptist rather than as a secular scholar.

Any other suspects? I'd forgotten that Richard Bauckham came up and he argues for "John Mark" (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 204 ff). We're up to four.

The traditional position is by no means fringe or discredited having on its side a number of respected scholars. Its simply not sufficient for you to argue from an assertion of a majority when the majority, if it really exists, may only be marginal or even not exist at all, say, in the case of Mark.

Heres something further to consider on this argument from a majority. In its present form as you are presenting it, it assumes a dichotomy: authored by the traditional author or not, either X or not X. In that form its rather trivial to argue the majority holds the view that any particular Gospel was not written by the traditional author since the denial of the traditional position amounts little more than not X and does not in and of itself form a meaningful explanation for who authored the work in question whereas the traditional position does. For instance, even Ben Witherington III would count on the side of denying the traditional authorship of John and so would Hengel. But Witherington and Hengel dont merely deny the traditional position, they hold to other explanations for who wrote the Gospel of John - Lazarus and John the Elder, respectively. Once we nuance the argument to survey alternate explanations for who the work in question that go beyond simply the affirmation or denial of the traditional position we may see that the traditional explanation forms a plurality among explanations argued for by scholars. Frankly, such a survey, in my opinion, would be far more meaningful and carry far more weight than simply a survey of for and against the traditional position.

Perhaps. The arguments from external evidence that we're discussing are still no more than arguments from assertion. We still have no evidence of provenance earlier or more convincing than Papias. Without access to his reasoning, a conclusion based on textual evidence is more weighty than any such statement. The author of Mark was apparently a Greek-speaking, diaspora Jew living outside of Palestine. Since John Mark was apparently a Palestinian native of Jerusalem, simply saying that someone other than John Mark wrote the Gospel has more explanatory power than the assertion that John Mark himself did, if for no other reason than the traditional authorship raises a new question of why a Palestinian would get details of the local geography wrong. Positing an author that is simply different, even if not explanatory in itself, at least raises no new questions. "Papias made a mistake" is at least as consistent as and perhaps explains more than "John Mark wrote Mark."

[Avoice]

What do we know about the gospel writers?

We don't even know who they were.

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were names invented by the church in the 2nd it 3rd century. Later they even added 'Saint' to their names. You've certainly seen the gospel written by Saint Mathew.

Well...there is no Saint Mathew, Saint Mark, Saint Like or Saint John. The gospels were written anonymously.

It's pathetic how the very first words of the Christian bible are lies. It doesn't stop there.

[Goose]

I will be breaking this into two more posts. Part (2) dealing with your response to the internal evidence and Part (3) the external evidence.

Part 2 the internal evidence for John

You have now offered some arguments, though.

A. CONCENTRIC PROOFS

(1) The Author was a Jew

(2) The Author was a Jew in Palestine

Neither of these is particularly in dispute. Most modern scholars see the author of John as a member of a Jewish-Christian sect that was expelled from a Jewish synagogue, the members of which are those polemically referred to as "the Jews" within the Gospel itself.

Fair enough.

(2) The Author was an Eyewitness of What he Wrote

This is one potential inference, but Wallace is presenting a conclusion as though it's part of our evidence. I agree with his basic analysis of "we beheld" and think it was an intentional choice of words. John's Gospel goes to great lengths to establish throughout that Jesus was a physical being. I expect that John's choice of was consciously both antidocetic and intended as a form of creed. In that light, I read "we" here as "we of the true church" rather than "we eyewitnesses." If one chooses to read "we beheld" as confirmation that the author was a witness, then "they" when speaking of the disciples ("there they stayed" in 2:12 and "they marvelled" in 4:27, for example) must equally mean that the author was not a disciple, thus eliminating John (or even "the disciple Jesus loved") as a possibility.

A number of counter points on this verse.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." 1:14

Firstly, once again this is a rejection of the straightforward meaning of "we" in favor of a kind of stylistic device as was argued with the "we" passages in Acts even though there is no evidence of a sea voyage here in John.

Secondly, if we accept 1:14 as intentionally antidocetic it demands to be understood as an explicit claim to be an eyewitness since authority in the early church was derived from having been an eyewitness to Jesus.

"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from usone of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias." - Acts 1:21-23

The claim to be an eyewitness in John 1:14 is echoed and made even more explicit in the opening of 1 John.

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:1-3

The weight of John 1:14 being any kind of refutation of Docetism is grounded in it being an explicit eyewitness claim to have seen a real fleshly Jesus.

Thirdly, is always used by John in a context where the subject of the verb is the one who literally saw the object (1:32, 1:38, 4:35, 6:5, 8:10,11:45). Under your interpretation, though, the author of John is breaking away from this rule and uses to not mean "we saw" in a literal sense. In short you're argument entails a Special Plea.

Fourthly, there are other references within John which make explicit claims that the account is one of an eyewitness. For instance 19:35 and the epilogue (21:24) which is itself an explicit affirmation that the text was authored by a disciple even if we only allow it to apply to the preceding verses rather than the entire Gospel.

Fifthly, in regards to the use of third person plural "they" in context to the disciples as a ruling out of an eyewitness. This does not follow. We have numerous texts from the era thought to be authored by an eyewitness where the text seems to freely move from first person plural ("we") to third person plural ("they") to first person singular ("I") to third person singular ("him" or the third person name such as "Caesar"). Examples come to us in Caesars Gallic War Commentaries and the writings of Josephus.

More could be said here, but I think thats sufficient for now.

(4) The Author was an Apostle

He has an intimate knowledge of what happened among the disciplescf. 2:11; 4:27; 6:19, etc.

As would an omniscient narrator, who would also know intimate details of events when the disciples were unambigously absent. There are a number of pericopes where the disciples weren't mentioned, but the disciples are explicitly excluded during the events of 18:28-19:11, yet the author includes an equivalent level of detail.

Firstly, to assume omniscient narration as an explanation when the account explicitly claims to be an eyewitness is entirely circular allowing the theory to falsify contradictory evidence.

Secondly, we have secular firsthand accounts from the era that report details of events where the narrator was absent. For example, in Josephus autobiography he recounts in vivid detail the events surrounding his men conspiring against him as a traitor including a lengthy speech given by Jesus, the son of Sapphias. All this taking place elsewhere while Josephus was asleep ( Life 27-28). It doesnt follow from that, that Josephus autobiography was omniscient narration or that it was not a firsthand account overall. It might make these particular details less reliable since we may have to speculate as to how Josephus (or John) came to know them. But it does not rule the account out as being authored by an eyewitness.

As to your specific example here (18:28-19:11). The only apparent private conversation is the one between Jesus and Pilate inside the governors headquarters (18:33-37). A careful reading of the text will show everything else takes place outside the headquarters where an observer could have been present or John could have asked someone who was present what had been said and occurred. Moreover, John 19:26 has the beloved disciple standing by the cross placing him in the general area at the time. No reason to think the author couldnt have been present to hear what was said between the Jews and Pilate.

As for the apparent private conversation between Jesus and Pilate (18:33-37). If one accepts the resurrection as I do, it isnt difficult to explain how the beloved disciple came by the details of this conversation as Jesus spent time with his disciples after he rose from the dead. Of course for anyone who does not accept the resurrection its harder to explain how the author would have come by the details of this conversation. It is possible that the author received them while Jesus was hanging on the cross. The beloved disciple is at the foot of the cross and does have a brief conversation with Jesus regarding the care for his mother at this point. Granted it doesnt seem very plausible that Jesus, while hanging in agony near death on the cross, would be in a state of mind to have a lengthy conversation with the beloved disciple about his private philosophical discussions with Pilate. We are left, then, with a few other possibilities. There was someone present while Jesus and Pilate had their conversation. A person who could have later relayed the story to either John or someone John could have later spoken to. A final possibility is John had heard Jesus and Pilate went into the headquarters alone and speculated about what was said in their conversation given what he know about the character of Jesus and Pilate. Not an uncommon practice for ancient writers, even ones that were writing eyewitness accounts (e.g. the speech of Jesus, the son of Sapphias that Josephus records). Whatever option one accepts it does not follow that John was not overall an eyewitness account.

(5) The Author was the Apostle John

He is exact in mentioning names of characters in the book. If he is so careful, why does he omit the name of John unless he is John?

John isn't the only unnamed disciple. James son of Zebedee, Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananaean aren't mentioned, either. Claiming that this demonstrates something unique about John requires a bit of special pleading. The argument usually involves the oblique reference to "the sons of Zebedee" in John 21 meaning that the author is either John or James. Since Acts says that James was martyred, that leaves John. If, however, John 21 was added by a later redactor ("Most scholars see this chapter as a later addition to the Gospel." The New Oxford Annotated Bible note on John 21:1-25), then the original author didn't mention John or James in any identifiable capacity. The criterion of "not mentioned," then, leaves them on equal footing with the other three and that's only if we're willing to assume that John's list of names would match at least one of the Synoptics (note that the disciple Nathaniel appears only in John, so there's already at least one explicit difference).

Youve conveniently left off the second premise here.

"Further, his mention of John the Baptist merely as "John" (1:6) implies that if he is to show up in the narrative another name must be given himsuch as "the beloved disciple"or else confusion would result."

Thus, you are attacking a strawman by arguing "John isn't the only unnamed disciple." No kidding. Thats not the entire argument.

The salient point being that the author of John introduces John the Baptist merely as "John" whereas the other three Gospels introduce him as "John the Baptist" thus distinguishing him from "John the son of Zebedee" the disciple. Indeed the only "John" to appear by name in the Gospel of John is John the Baptist and he is only ever referred to as simply "John" without any of the qualifiers we see elsewhere in John and the other three Gospels. Taken with the fact the author makes sure to distinguish between names of characters who had the same name (e.g. the Marys) and the disciples it seems the only person who could introduce and narrate about John the Baptist as simply "John" without creating confusion is John the disciple. Given how the other gospels introduce John the Baptist and given how the Gospel of John introduces and carefully distinguishes characters, if it were anyone other than John the disciple who authored the Gospel of John we would expect him to qualify his introduction of John the Baptist as "John the Baptist." He doesnt introduce John the Baptist that way, only as "John." That argument alone is strong enough to infer Johns authorship.

[Goose]

Part 3 - the external evidence for John

I dont see why he needs to when Irenaeus establishes a direct line right back to John. Besides, thats not much of an argument since we have to take the word of many ancient writers in regards to attributing authorship (and other matters).

Irenaeus tells us he had knowledge of the works of Papias and that Papias had heard John and was a companion of Polycarp.

To be blunt, Irenaeus is unreliable. His writings are in the form of apologetic polemic rather than history and much of what he wrote is, to put it charitably, a bit dubious. He gets a number of things wrong in obvious ways, so I have little faith in the truth or accuracy of anything he wrote. I could accept that he didn't himself invent the various traditions he cites, but he seems to have been somewhat uncritical about them as long as they supported whatever argument was being made "against heresies." He also didn't seem to be fussed about even obvious contradictions between the traditions he reported and New Testament Books that he quoted from. Jesus was older than 50 when he died (Adv. Haer. 2:22:5), Peter and Paul together founded the Church at Rome (3:3:2), and James the Apostle was the James of Galatians (3:12:15).

Firstly, a general point on the reliability of sources because you are sweeping with an awfully broad brush here. Historians dont discard sources as wholly unreliable, as you are here with Irenaeus, on the grounds the writers may have made some mistakes, had agendas, or werent, strictly speaking, writing history. Especially when those sources are as close to the events they report as Irenaeus was to John. Historians would have virtually nothing but a patchy archaeological record to work with if they did. For instance, Tacitus confused the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor who were both named Antonia. He thought the Jews wandered the desert for only six days (Histories 5.3) rather than forty years despite getting many other details about the Jews correct. Tacitus also had a bias against Christianity referring to it as a "most mischievous superstition." Josephus claimed 1.1 million Jews died in the siege of Jerusalem (War of the Jews 6.9.3). Despite these problems its fairly widely held that Tacitus and Josephus were generally reliable. Historians use them all the time to gain an understanding of the history of the first century. I could supply many more examples but its a trivial point to concede that ancient writers occasionally made mistakes, embellished, reported hearsay, the supernatural, and had agendas. Indeed, given your reasoning here we would have to discard many modern historians (dare I say Richard Carrier?) and news sources as wholly unreliable as well.

If we applied your reasoning to the sources that are appealed to for establishing the authorship of Tacitus Histories and Caesars Gallic War Commentaries we would have to rule them out as unreliable as well. Cicero was a biased politician prone to spreading gossip. Plutarch wasnt sure whether Mark Antony was age 53 or 56 when he died (Life of Mark Antony 86). Pliny was a Tacitus groupie wanting badly for Tacitus to mention him. In his famous letter Pliny tells Trajan hes never been present for an examination of a Christian then goes on to tell Trajan about how he examines Christians. Suetonius reported hearsay and rumours. I could go on.

Secondly, on a more general note regarding Irenaeus. He wasnt attempting to write a history, on that we can agree. But thats not to say theres nothing historical in his writings or that he did not care about history. Cicero wasnt attempting to write a history in his highly polemic Philippics nor was Paul in his letters. Yet each contain historical elements. The point here is that the expectation that Irenaeus must report like an historian for his work to be thought of as relaying reliable history is quite ridiculous on the face of it.

Thirdly, its not even necessary for me to defend the alleged mistakes youve cited since the mistakes, even if they hold, are not relevant to Irenaeus knowledge of who wrote the fourth Gospel. The strength of which comes from his connection to Polycarp who was connected to John. Irenaeus is not wrong about the authorship of the fourth Gospel because he may have been wrong about how old Jesus was when he died. Tacitus shows us that an ancient writer can be grossly incorrect on one fact yet correct on many other facts about the same subject such as the Jews being a monotheistic people who practised circumcision and burial rather than cremation (Histories 5.5). In other words, Tacitus proves it does not follow that author X was wrong on A because X was wrong on B. You need to furnish some direct evidence that Irenaeus was wrong about who wrote the fourth Gospel. Not argue by insinuation or conjecture. Thats terribly weak.

Fourthly, as for the alleged mistakes themselves. They seem to be rather uncharitable readings of Irenaeus. I dont see the problem with Peter and Paul in Rome (3.3.2). As for James the apostle being confused with the James of Galatians (3.12.15) Irenaeus simply mentions James twice. Perhaps you can flesh these out if you feel they are serious indictments against Irenaeus. As for the claim Irenaeus thought "Jesus was older than 50 when he died." Thats your interpretation (or someone elses) and is simply not stated in the text itself. Irenaeus is making a lengthy theological argument. An argument which, as scholars have noted, is quite obviously influenced by Irenaeus recapitulation theology.

"Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all." AH 2.22.4

Irenaeus may even be denying the notion that Jesus was fifty when he died as he appeals to John 8:56-57 when the Jews rebutted Jesus, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Irenaeus then goes on to say that language is fitting for someone who had not "yet reached his fiftieth year." Irenaeus was more concerned with denying the Aeons assertion that Jesus had died when he was thirty so as to line up with their own doctrines pertaining to the significance of the number thirty. The main point of Irenaeus was to deny that Jesus "certainly was not one of only thirty years of age" not to affirm an explicit age at which Jesus died. The noted Irenaeus scholar John Behr interprets Irenaeus as having come to the conclusion that Jesus, at the time of his public teaching, was forty years old (Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity, 2013, pg. 10). If that interpretation holds then Irenaeus missed the mark by not more than a decade. Possibly even less than that depending on where we land with the years of the birth and death of Jesus. Even if Irenaeus was off by as much as a decade its certainly not enough to toss Irenaeus in the trash if a forty year botch isnt enough to throw away Tacitus.

Fifthly, there are reasons to think Irenaeus was reliable. Although we need not accept uncritically everything the patristic writers such as Irenaeus assert we should not so easily dismiss them for the following reasons.

1. Irenaeus was temporally and spatially close to the events having met Polycarp who met John.

2. Irenaeus had access to writings and evidences that have been lost to modern scholars (e.g. the writings of Papias).

3. Irenaeus was a scholar in his own right. Educated, widely read, and a prolific writer.

4. Irenaeus got some details right (approximate age when Jesus began his ministry, Papias had written five books, etc.)

Indeed, Eusebius, who had the writings of Papias to compare with, thought that Irenaeus was a bit confused about which John Papias had talked to ("Papias himself, however, according to the preface of his treatises, makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eye-witness of the holy Apostles").

Thats Eusebius interpretation of Papias words. A wrong interpretation I would argue. Explicitly, thats not what Papias wrote. Papias does not, himself, deny meeting the disciple John. Its no secret Eusebius wasnt particularly fond of Papias and his millennial views. Eusebius may have let his desire to discredit Papias influence his interpretation of Papias words regarding the mention of John twice (CH, 3.39.4-5). But according to Eusebius, Ireneaus explicitly states Papias was a hearer of John. This is where a historical method helps break the deadlock. We ought to give greater weight to the earlier source especially when that source is contemporary (and even more especially when that source is claiming to be an eyewitness) over a much later source.

If you think that we rely on other ancient writers that are this bad, then I'll agree that we shouldn't.

Historians do rely on other ancient writers that were this "bad." If we shouldnt rely on them then we may as well toss out all our history texts. And thats absurd.

In other words, the external evidence for the authorship of these two secular works (and many others) is no stronger than external evidence for John (and the Gospels). Therefore, whatever we say about the strength of the external evidence for the Gospels we must also say about the strength of the external evidence for these two secular works. Whatever we conclude about the authorship of the Gospels because of the weakness of the external evidence for the Gospel of John (and the other Gospels) we must likewise conclude about these secular works. Are you prepared to conclude Caesars Gallic War Commentary and Tacitus Histories were probably not authored by the respective traditional authors? You had better be because that is what your reasoning implies if we apply it those secular works.

If your summary accurately reflects the state of the evidence, then yes. If the historical reasoning for their authorship is actually based on flimsy data, I don't see a problem with considering its support insufficient.

The only problem, I suppose, is that classical scholars do not hold the view Tacitus was not the author of the Histories or that Caesar was not the author of the Gallic War Commentaries because they see that "flimsy data" as sufficient to establish authorship. So, either classical scholars are unreasonably credulous or those who deny the external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels as sufficient are unreasonably sceptical.

So will you officially go on record as stating you affirm that the Histories and Gallic War Commentary were probably not authored by Tacitus and Caesar respectively? I mean why not, right? Youve already gone on record as stating that "Jesus wasn't a real guy." May as well continue moving further and further out into the absurd hyper-sceptical fringe where nothing about history can be known. While out there may as well complete the circle by denying the existence of Pontius Pilate and the assassination of Caesar.

I've dealt with enough modern apologetic tu quoque arguments to suspect that's not the case, though. I'm far less familiar with historiography than I am with, say, biology and creationism apologetics, but I'd bet that the overall apologetic framework is the same.

Do I detect a tacit admission here that you dont want it to be the case? At any rate, your suspicions are hardly any kind of counter argument.

Still, if the historical methods behind conclusions about Caesar and Tacitus are really that bad, that's not a valid excuse to use the same poor reasoning elsewhere.

Why are those historical methods bad though? Let me guess. Because along with showing that Caesar wrote the Gallic War Commentaries and Tacitus wrote the Histories they also show John authored the fourth Gospel (as well as the other traditional authorial attributions of the remaining Gospels). But John did not write the fourth Gospel so the methods must be bad. Can you see the circularity there?

1. Evidence from Justin Martyr (c. 150 - 160 AD):

Although Martyr does not explicitly attribute the fourth Gospel to John (Martyr doesnt explicitly attribute the other three Gospels to any particular author either but rather refers to the "memoirs of the apostles" as he makes use of them) he is familiar with the unique doctrines found in the Gospel of John, quotes from it as scripture, and does link it to apostolic authorship along with the other Gospels.

Some of his references are closer to John than they are to the other canonical Gospels and might be paraphrases, but Justin never directly quotes John. In fact, when referring to "the memoirs of the Apostles," his quotations rarely match exactly and it's not even clear that he's referring to multiple documents.

"Memoirs of the apostles" implies multiple documents. Its not as though Justin says "memoir of the Apostles".

As for Justin not quoting the Gospels exactly. Thats not much of an argument against him knowing the Gospels. Justin also quotes loosely from the Old Testament sometimes simply attributing it to the "spirit of prophecy."

"And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort: I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. [Isaiah 65:2] And again: I gave My back to the scourges, and My cheeks to the buffetings; I turned not away My face from the shame of spittings; and the Lord was My helper: therefore was I not confounded: but I set My face as a firm rock; and I knew that I should not be ashamed, for He is near that justifies Me. [Isaiah 50:6] And again, when He says, They cast lots upon My vesture, and pierced My hands and My feet. And I lay down and slept, and rose again, because the Lord sustained Me. And again, when He says, They spoke with their lips, they wagged the head, saying, Let Him deliver Himself. And that all these things happened to Christ at the hands of the Jews, you can ascertain. For when He was crucified, they did shoot out the lip, and wagged their heads, saying, Let Him who raised the dead save Himself. [Matthew 27:39]

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." [Isaiah 2:3] 1 Apology 38-39

So are we to think Justin had no idea these prophecies are found in Isaiah either? Just another anonymous creed Justin was quoting, I suppose.

He uses "Memoirs of the Apostles" suspiciously like it's the title of a Diatessaron-like composite document, which would explain why he never attributes the "memoirs" to any particular Apostle.

Youre getting this notion of a "Diatessaron-like composite document" from Justins student Tatian, yes? A "Diatessaron-type composite document" thought to have been compiled by Tatian which seems to have used the Gospel of John heavily and opens with the following.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not." - Diatessaron

That look familiar at all? So lets see if I have the argument straight. Justin may have had a "Diatessaron-type composite document" something, presumably, like his student Tatians document. But Justins version did not incorporate the Gospel of John even though Justins student, Tatian, used the Gospel of John heavily in his Diatessaron? Is that the general gist of the argument?

Also Martyr does seem to be aware of the tradition that the book of Revelations was attributed to John...

Revelation itself says that it was revealed to "his servant John." Someone with no prior exposure to Christianity at all could chance upon a copy of Revelation and any one of the Synoptics and draw the conclusion that the Apostle wrote Revelation.

Okay so Justin Martyr had to have had Revelations and at least one synoptic. But he seems familiar with all three of the synpotics. So Justin had Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelations but he didnt have John. That doesnt sound very plausible especially when we consider Justins student, Tatian, seems to have had John.

Further, on this particular point, the disciple John is never called "his servant John" in any of the synoptics. And "his servant John" could be any one of several Johns mentioned throughout the NT (John 1:42; Acts 4:5-6, 12:12). It could mean John the Baptist (before he died) or the so-called "John the elder" Papias is supposed to have known. Justin either got lucky or somehow had knowledge Revelations was attributed to John the disciple. If he knew Revelations was attributed to John the disciple its certainly not a stretch to think he knew John also authored a Gospel.

...and that some Gospels were drawn up by disciples and some were drawn up by followers of the disciples.

Is this from Trypho 103 what you mean?

For in the Memoirs of the Apostles and their successors, it is written that...

Thats the one.

It seems inexplicable that Justin would be familiar with the unique doctrines found in the Gospel of John, quote from it as authoritative scripture, be aware of the obscure traditions that this prophecy was attributed to John, and be aware that some Gospels were authored by disciples and some by those who followed them but somehow not be aware of the more prominent tradition that the fourth Gospel was attributed to John.

Even if your characterization is overstated, a plausible conjecture like "Justin didn't actually know any of the canonical Gospels, but had a composite, unattributed document similar to the Diatessaron" would fit the data well enough that "inexplicable" is hardly apt.

Yes, I think such a conjecture could explain the data so I agree that inexplicable is an overstatement. All you have to do now is prove Justin "had a composite, unattributed document similar to the Diatessaron." But pointing out the overstatement and presenting some conjecture doesnt address the argument here. You are still left having to explain Justin being familiar with the unique doctrines of John and using this "composite, unattributed document similar to the Diatessaron" as though it were on par with scripture.

"Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." - 1 Apology 61

This isn't a direct quotation of John 3:3. In Greek, Justin Martyr's quotation from Jesus reads (bold mine):

, .

Here, means "you were to be reborn" and is similar enough to John 3:3 that it may be what Justin Martyr was thinking about, but an important part of John 3:3 is the dual meaning of "one were to be born again/born from above." 1 Peter 1:3 mirrors Justin's use of "reborn" ( , "he caused us to be reborn into living hope"), so Justin may just as easily have been quoting a creed that was incorporated into his "memoirs of the Apostles" (or something else entirely; he doesn't say who or what he's quoting other than "Jesus Christ"). Scholars debate whether Justin even knew John's Gospel at all and details like this are why.

Plutarch doesnt quote Caesars Gallic War Commentaries directly and neither does Tertullian quote directly the words of Tacitus Histories. But no one would think to argue Plutarch or Tertullian didnt have a copy of the respective works in their possession (or at least never have come across the works). No one would argue they were instead just quoting from a creed or oral tradition. Which is why I find this to be a disingenuous argument to make for anyone who would also argue for Markan Priority. I will Bart Ehrman explain the reasoning.

"As we have seen, the principle grounds for assuming that one document served as a source for another is their wide-ranging similarities; when they tell the same stories and do so in the same way, they must be literarily related to one another. Thus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke must have sources in common because they agree with one another on a number of occasions, often word for word. This is not the case for the Fourth Gospel." - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 1997, pg. 142.

But here with Justin Martyr this methodology is abandoned. Justins similarity to John in concept, content, verbiage, and narrative is explained as Justin may "just as easily have been quoting a creed." Which seems to undermine the whole Markan Priority argument if by the middle of the second century Justin could have received a creed so well preserved that it would otherwise seem to have been lifted right out of John.

"Jesus responded and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mothers womb a second time and be born, can he?"" - John

"For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all." - Justin Martyr

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." - 1 Peter

Notice the contextual difference between 1 Peter and Justin. Then notice the contextual similarity between John and Justin. Justin has born again to attain the kingdom, then a statement of clarification regarding not re-entering the womb of ones mother thus betraying a knowledge of the narrative in John between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:4ff). If the best explanation for the similar content, concept, and verbiage between Matthew and Mark is that Matthew used Mark then the best explanation for the similar concept, content, and verbiage between Justin Martyr and the Gospel of John is that Justin used John. Appealing to a creed or oral tradition to explain the similarity between Justin and John is an inconsistent application of methodology.

You can of course quibble that Justin did not use (born again) but rather used a compound word from and . But the meaning is essentially the same. You can quibble that Justin said enter "the kingdom of heaven" instead of "the kingdom of God". But given the context it seems obvious Justin has mirrored material from Johns Gospel. We have further evidence that Justin altered texts of the OT to suite his own purposes such as Psalm 110:2, which he quotes on six occasions, and Genesis 49:10 (see DAVE E. AUNE, JUSTIN MARTYR'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT p. 192-3). So theres no reason to think Justin didnt do the same thing here with John (and the other Gospels).

Moreover, Justin Martyr quotes from Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. But he never quotes from Judges. Are we to think Justin had no knowledge of Judges either then?

1 Apology 66

I'm not sure which parts of this impact on apostolic authorship of John, even in a general way. I'll guess about what you mean, but feel free to correct me if I guess wrong.

John's extended Last Supper scene (chapters 13-17) doesn't include a reference to the Eucharist, so that's presumably not what you're referencing.

If "Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God" is meant as a reference to John's Logos theology, then Justin gets it wrong. The phrases "the Word made flesh" and "made flesh by the Word of God" aren't theologically compatible. We're not arguing theology, so an unambiguous quote from John would be just as valid here even if misused, but as it is, I wouldn't read it as a reference to John.

Even granting Martyr gets the specifics of the wording wrong here, we are still left having to explain where he got this unique Logos theology if not from John.

(or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ... 1 Apology 5

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven... - 1 Apology 21.1

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will... 1 Apology 23.2

And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man. 1 Apology 32.10

If that Logos theology is not lifted from John chapter 1, from where did it come then? I suppose it could have come to Justin from 1 John. But then weve got this scenario where Justin has the all three synoptics, Revelations and one of Johns letters but does not have the Gospel of John. How many books of the NT does Justin need to possess before it just becomes untenable to argue that he doesnt have the Gospel of John?

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread...

Scholars are about evenly split as to whether the phrase "which are called Gospels" is a gloss that was later interpolated into the text. It's the only place we know where Justin refers to "gospels" in plural. He otherwise uses "gospel" as a singular noun in the sense of "the Christian message." Chapter 100 of the Dialog with Trypho refers to a written gospel ("...but also in the Gospel it is written..."), but it's again unclear what to take from it. The quotation is very close to Matthew, but not exact. Does "the gospel" mean "the Gospel of Matthew" and Justin's quotation is from memory and imperfect or is "the Gospel" a different composition derived from or sharing a source with Matthew?

The gloss argument cuts both ways. Perhaps in Dialogue with Trypho (100) "Gospel" was originally plural. Perhaps Justin simply had the Gospel of Matthew in mind here since much of what follows comes to us from Matthew but not all of it is found in the other three Gospels. For instance, Justin quotes from Matthew 11:27 which is also found in Luke, but not Mark or John. Perhaps Justin was referring to the Gospel message as it was written. Whatever the reason Justin may have referred to a singular Gospel here, just a few verses later he is back to referring to things "recorded in memoirs of his apostles" and implying the pre-eminence of Christ.

"...since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will" Dialogue 100

If despite these, we accept that Justin considered the Synoptics to be the "memoirs of the Apostles" and was, in fact, quoting John's Gospel, it's still unclear that he considered the Gospel of John to be apostolic.

There is no other plausible way to explain why Justin uses it on the same level as scripture and quite clearly adopted a Johannine Logos theology (Dial. 105, etc.)

Note the wording of Trypho 105:

These words, too, point out what He would be and what would happen to Him. I have proved that He is the Only-begotten of the Father of the universe, having been properly begotten from Him as His Word and Power, and afterwards becoming man by a virgin, as we have learned from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

That Jesus was God's "Word and Power", the theological point that is unique to the Gospel of John, Justin wrote that he proved himself. The point that is established by the "memoirs of the Apostles," that Jesus was born of a virgin, is absent in John.

C.E. Hill has addressed this argument from J.W. Pryor in his paper Was Johns Gospel among Justins Apostolic Memoirs found in Sara Parvis and Paul Fosters Justin Martyr and His Worlds pg. 89 (2007).

Pryor has argued that what Justin here attributes to the Memoirs should be restricted to the virgin birth,7 and should not include that Jesus is monogenes to the Father, because Justin claims he has already "proved" his case, and Pryor finds no evidence of direct dependence on John 1 in the immediately preceding chapters. 8 But Justin does not say here that he has "proved" anything "from the Memoirs"as though he were saying that he had laid out all his alleged evidence explicitly from themonly that he and other Christians have learned these things from the Memoirs. For the plural we in "as we have learned from the Memoirs" evidently refers not to Justin and Trypho, but to Justin and other Christians.9 Moreover, even if we should restrict the information derived from the Memoirs to "the virgin birth," we must recognize that Justin does not simply speak here of a "virgin birth"a miraculous birth of a human beinghe speaks of a divine gure (the monogenes of the Father, begotten of him in a peculiar manner as Word and Power) "becoming man" through the virgin. Both the description of this divine personage and the description of his "becoming man"10 are given in language that here and elsewhere in his writings arguably shows the imprint of Johns Prologue.

For instance, Christs "becoming man" ( ) is elsewhere specied as his "having been made esh" (), reecting the conception and wording of John 1:14 ( ) in 1 Apology 32.10. And his "becoming man according to his [Gods] will" ( , 1 Apol. 23.2; cf. Dial. 63.2), elsewhere reects the christological application of John 1:13, "born not of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (see also 1 Apol .21.1; 22.2; 23.2; 32.9, 10; 63.2).11 That Justin says he learned from the Memoirs about the Logos, the only-begotten of the Father, begotten by him after a peculiar manner" having become man through the virgin," is as much as saying that Johns Gospel was one of the Memoirs.

In that paper, after making the arguments Hill concludes.

This, I believe, makes it morally certain that the several details in this section that correspond only to the Fourth Gospel and not to the Synoptics are indeed signs of Justins dependence upon that Gospel. That the Fourth Gospel was an important authority for Justins views of Jesus deity, incarnation, and baptism (Dial. 88.3, 7),33 and for his understanding of the meaning of Christian baptism (1 Apol . 61.34),34 could already have been armed. His words about the "Acts which occurred under Pontius Pilate" appear to demonstrate that Johns account was also useful for Justins understanding of the healings Jesus performed, perhaps the raising of the dead Lazarus, and the suerings of Jesusall in fulllment of Old Testament prophecy. But most signicantly, his words about the "Acts" demonstrate independently that the Fourth Gospel was indeed among the collection of writings Justin calls the Memoirs of the Apostles, thus conrming and amplifying our conclusion already drawn from Dialogue 105.1 (see above). This naturally means Johns Gospel was among those read and expounded upon along with the prophets in Roman churches in the mid-second century (1 Apol. 67.3).

In conclusion on Justin Martyr. Notice how you are having to explain Justins use of material obviously present in the four Gospels by reaching for creeds, anonymous documents, and/or a "Diatessaron-type composite document" (which of course presupposes separate documents that preceded this compost document). All this ad hocery when there is a simpler explanation that explains all the evidence from Justins material through to the material found in Tatians Diatessaron. Justin, like Tatian, Irenaeus etc, had access to the four Gospels and that by Justins day they were as authoritative as scripture because they carried the weight of apostolic authorship standing behind them. And thats as far as Justin Martyr takes us. As I said originally Justin does not explicitly attribute authorship of the fourth Gospel to John (or anyone else).

2. Evidence from the Anti-Marcionite Prologues (c. 160 - 180 AD):

"The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books."

Some scholars have dated these prologues to around 160 - 180 AD. The prologue to John is particularly of interest as it appeals to the authority of Papias writings. In other words, in his writings Papias had claimed John wrote a Gospel. That gives a contemporary source to John, through Papias, attesting to John having authored a Gospel.

This was new to me. I managed to unearth a series of three papers by B. W. Bacon that were specifically about the Prologue to John and its relation to Papias:

The Latin Prologues of John in JBL 32:3 pp. 194-217. There's a free PDF at JSTOR.
Marcion, Papias, and The Elders in The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume os-XXIII, Issue 90, January 1922, Pages 134160. It's behind a paywall at Oxford Academic, but is in the public domain in both the U.S. and life+70 countries. A downloadable scan is available here.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John JBL 49:1 pp. 43-54. It can be read online with a personal JSTOR account.

I'm not going to reiterate the full content of the papers, but the takeaway is that the author convincingly argues that the original prologue was intended to refer to Revelation, but was mistakenly applied to the Gospel of John. The main line of argumentation is that during a period between the late second and early third centuries, the authorship of the fourth Gospel was a hot topic and a number of Christian writers were scouring the works of Papias and other documents for any concrete evidence supporting apostolic authority for the canonical Gospels. None of these authors, including Irenaeus, claimed support from Papias for the apostolic authority of John's Gospel. Irenaeus said (mistakenly, according to Eusebius) that Papias knew the Apostle John, but didn't offer any support from his writings for the Apostle John having written a gospel. This, according to Bacon, is a powerful enough argument from silence that we should consider the existence of such support to be extremely unlikely.

Firstly, that you managed to "unearth" some papers from Bacon is a bit of understatement. Those papers by Bacon are around 100 years old (Bacons first article on the topic was published in 1913) and seems to run against your preference for modern scholars. Now, Bacon writing a century ago is of course not ipso facto reason to dismiss him but it suggests Bacons proposal regarding this prologue didnt exactly light the academic world on fire and may not have been as "convincingly argued" as you are suggesting. I could be wrong, but if I am then youd not have to dig so far back in scholarship, I think. But maybe thats because of my next point.

Secondly, Bacon himself concedes near the end of the first article that his entire argument is "only conjecture."

"But I have gone too far and too fast. Mere conjecture, I may well be reminded, is a drug in the market. And what I have offered thus far is only conjecture. Let me return to the prologue, which we felt obliged to render: [Greek rendering]. We declared that if from Papias, this statement could only apply to Revelation and not to the Gospel. The assertion will certainly be challenged. We shall be asked whether any textual evidence exists to support it. Textual evidence for Revelation, I need not say, is scanty, but I will acknowledge that if MSS. once circulated having a subscription such as I have supposed to be the real source of our prologue, some trace of the note might be expected to survive in some quarter; and it is here that I must invoke the aid of critics having wider access than I to the textual sources." (pg. 216)

Thirdly, Bacon sees "revealed and given to the churches" as best explained as a reference to Revelations 1:9-11. To be sure its certainly consistent with a reference to Revelations. But I would simply reply its hardly a concept that can only be explained as a reference to Revelations. Theres nothing that prevents "revealed and given to the churches" as being likewise consistent with a reference to the Gospel message (e.g. Galatians 1:11-12, 1; Acts 9:20). However, the prologue to John explicitly says it is referring to the Gospel given by John while he was "in the body" which seems to contradict Revelations 1:10 which says John was "in the spirit." Indeed, the reference to "in the body" seems to be an intentional qualifier meant to rule out a reference to Revelations.

3. Evidence from the Muratorian fragment (c. 170 - 180 AD):

If you're just going to William Lane Craig me and present contested dates as settled, then I'm going to do the same thing. The Muratorian fragment dates to the fourth century and is therefore not an independent witness to apostolic authorship.

I dont know what "William Lane Craig me" is supposed to mean. Although a later date has been argued, later dating runs against the scholarly consensus according to C.E Hill. A scholarly consensus which puts it around the end of the second/beginning of the third century.

"Scholars have traditionally assigned the Muratorian Fragment (MF) to the end of the second century or the beginning of the third. As such it has been important as providing the earliest known "canon" list, one that has the same "core" of writings which were later agreed upon by the whole church. Geoffrey Hahneman has now written a forceful book in an effort to dismantle this consensus..." C.E. Hill, The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon

Therefore, using your reasoning, since the scholarly consensus is that the MF is dated around the end of the second/beginning of the third century as far as you should be concerned that ought to establish a sufficient bar of probability for dating. After all you did say, and I quote, "a majority of experts in agreement is a sufficient bar to establish probability."

From the conclusion of The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon by Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, p. 217:

Several remarkable parallels with Epiphanius would seem to confirm a Syrian/Palestinian provenance around 375 for the Fragment, specifically the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in a New Testament catalogue, the mention of a Marcionite Laodiceans (in addition to the canonical Ephesians), and the presence of Revelation without comment. These, combined with the public reading of the Revelation of Peter noted in the Fragment and Sozomen, and various similarities with Jerome (392), namely the seven-letter Pauline scheme, Philo as the author of Wisdom, a rejection of Laodiceans, the inclusion of Revelation, and doubts about Hebrews, would seem to confirm that the Muratorian Fragment is not a Western late second-century document, but is instead a late fourth-century Eastern catalogue, probably deriving from Western Syria or Palestine.

In the above article C.E. Hill goes on to address the arguments Hahneman lays out in his book. Hill concludes his paper with the following summary.

"There is no question that Hahneman has beefed up Sundbergs case for a later date and an Eastern origin for the Muratorian Fragment. Still, we are bound to judge that the case is unconvincing and that the traditional dating does far better justice to the evidence. Along with the present reviewer, Ferguson and Horbury have already pointed to some of the major weaknesses of the proposal. Thus, despite early endorsement from R. M. Grant,38 the theory certainly cannot be said to have carried the day. Though the thesis of Sundberg and Hahneman may be flawed and at many points tendentious, they have turned over old embers which now are certain to glow again. As we note an interest in canon questions being raised from other quarters (notably by some who would like to see the Gospel of Thomas included in future editions of the NT), it would seem that the stage is set for important work to be done in this area."

4. Evidence from Theophilus of Antioch (lived c. (?) - 183 AD):

I'll concede here that this is someone other than Irenaeus that thought John's Gospel was written by John son of Zebedee, but like Irenaeus, there's no information about how or when such a tradition originated.

Okay fair enough. But that's, once again, not much of an argument. We don't know where Pliny, Plutarch, Suetonius, or Tertullian got their information about who wrote the respective works they speak of either.

5. Evidence from the Ptolemus (c. 170 AD?) as recorded by Irenaeus:

6. Evidence from Heracleon (c. 175 AD?) as recorded by Origen in his commentary on John:

Since both were Valentinian gnostics, their views on Johannine authorship are unlikely to be independent of each other. That makes Origen's comment that much more interesting.

Thats like arguing since Suetonius and Cicero were both educated in Rome the their views on Caesars authorship of the Gallic War Commentaries are unlikely to be independent of each other. Or like arguing since Tacitus and Pliny both studied in Rome under Quintilian their views on Domitius Afer would not be independent of each other. With that kind of reasoning, very little from antiquity can be considered independent. Certainly no one educated in Rome can be considered independent with that kind of reasoning. And youve ignored Ptolemus altogether. In the end, both constitute neutral/hostile sources attributing the authorship of the fourth Gospel to John.

"Heracleon supposes the words, No one has seen God at any time, [John:18] etc., to have been spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple." Origen, Commentary on John 4.2

Again, as with Ptolemus, Heracleon is another non-orthodox source who attributes the words of the fourth Gospel to John, the disciple.

Reading John 1, it looks like in order to take Origen's comment at face value, Heracleon must have understood the "John" of at least 1:15 to be the disciple. I could imagine a reading based only on John's Gospel that conflates "John" throughout with the John of, say, Galatians 2:9, but Heracleon apparently knew Luke's Gospel. I find it hard to believe that someone that knew the story of the Synoptics would fail to recognize the named John within the Gospel of John as the Baptist, so I'm trying to decide if Origen was simply mistaken or if Heracleon (and the Valentinians in general) were made some sort of connection overall between John the Baptist and John the disciple.

But I could make the same kind of argument regarding Suetonius' linking the Gallic War Commentaries with Caesar where we imagine Suetonius mistakenly interpreting Cicero's letters to be speaking of our Gallic War Commentaries. Whatever the case, Heracleon and Ptolemus represent two sources outside the orthodox view which attributed the fourth Gospel to John.


Heres a summary of how the external evidence for the Gospel of John stacks up against other works like the Histories of Tacitus, and Caesars Gallic War Commentaries. Keep in mind, this is granting the reliability of the external evidence for those two secular works. Which would be called into question if I were to apply to that evidence the hyper-sceptical reasoning that has been applied to the external evidence for John (and the other Gospels).

	Gospel of John	Histories	Gallic War Commentaries
Contemporary attestation to writing something	Yes (Papias via Anti-Marcionite prologue)	Yes (Pliny)	Yes (Cicero)
First explicit attribution of authorship	90 years (Theophilus of Antioch)	90-100 years (Tertullian)	160 years (Suetonius)
Number of direct attributions within 100 years	8 (Anti-Marc. Pro., Murat. frag., Theoph., Ptol., Herac., Iren., Clem., Tert.)	2 (Pliny, Tertullian)	1 (Cicero)
Number of direct attributions within 150 years	11 (including manuscripts, not including Martyr)	2 (Pliny, Tertullian)	2 (Cicero, Plutarch)
Geographically diverse attribution within 150 years	Yes (Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian)	Yes (Tertullian)	Yes (Plutarch)
Chain of personal contact back to author	Yes (Irenaeus -> Polycarp -> John)	No	No
Neutral or hostile attribution	Yes (Ptolemus, Heracleon)	Yes (Tertullian)	Yes (Cicero)

Heres a revised summary granting all your arguments and assuming you wouldve come up with some objection to Clement, Tertullian, Origen, and the manuscript evidence, however weak those objections may have been, just to demonstrate the strength and abundance of the evidence for the authorship of John.

	Gospel of John	Histories	Gallic War Commentaries
Contemporary attestation to writing something	No	Yes (Pliny)	Yes (Cicero)
First explicit attribution of authorship	90 years (Theophilus of Antioch)	90-100 years (Tertullian)	160 years (Suetonius)
Number of direct attributions within 100 years	4 (Theoph., Ptol., Herac., Iren.,)	2 (Pliny, Tertullian)	1 (Cicero)
Number of direct attributions within 150 years	4 (Theoph., Ptol., Herac., Iren.)	2 (Pliny, Tertullian)	2 (Cicero, Plutarch)
Geographically diverse attribution within 150 years	Yes (Irenaeus, Theophilus)	Yes (Tertullian)	Yes (Plutarch)
Chain of personal contact back to author	Yes (Irenaeus -> Polycarp -> John)	No	No
Neutral or hostile attribution	Yes (Ptolemus, Heracleon)	Yes (Tertullian)	Yes (Cicero)

I dont know how anyone could not see the external evidence for the authorship of John is, at least, just as strong as it is for the other two secular works, Tacitus Histories and Caesars Gallic War Commentaries.

The explanation that the author of the fourth Gospel was authored by John (the disciple, the son of Zebedee) accounts for more evidence than any other explanation. It obviously explains all the external evidence and is consistent with the internal evidence.

Any explanation that argues the author of the fourth Gospel was not John does not account for the external evidence. Moreover such a rejection of the traditional position logically entails that all the external evidence from the patristic writers is false, mistaken, etc. Not that the external evidence can be interpreted differently to support any explanation for not John but that the evidence is false. It has to be, all of it. This seems to be a case of circular reasoning allowing the theory to determine which evidence is false rather than allowing the evidence to determine which theory is false.

It seems to me the explanation that John is the author of the fourth Gospel, given the abundant and diverse external evidence and consistent internal evidence, demands a powerful defeater to be shown false. Youve not provided that.