Who really wrote the writings of John?

[polonius]

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

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

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

[Tired of the Nonsense]

According to Christian tradition, the apostle John (the evangelist) wrote ALL of the works attributed to him. As it turns out, the author of 2 John and 3 John identifies named himself as the presbyter, and not the evangelist. If we are going to conclude that Christian tradition is not accurate, then it is necessary to provide an actual line of evidence for the origin of the Gospel. In truth we do not know who actually wrote the Gospel According to John in the same way that we do not actually know who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew. The historical record does not support the claim that the Gospels were written by apostles, and you have invalidated Christian tradition as being trustworthy. Which leaves us with "I don't know."

It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to come to terms with things like detail, nuance and actual evidence. I do not accept this black and white thinking as valid. As long as you keep imagining vague, unreferenced 'Christian tradition' as a monolithic entity to be accepted or mistrusted as a whole, there really is little point in further discussion.

Actual evidence is what I value. You don't have any of that. Nuance and details are merely interesting, but don't really establish anything. At best you can claim that the apostle COULD have written Gospel John. If he was very young when he knew Jesus and lived to be very old. But if you eliminate Christian tradition as a credible source of information, then we don't really know who wrote Gospel John. So it might have been anybody.

[dio9]

since you do ot allow one liners, I will have to say more than, beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life down here. this question is so boring I hesitate to come to this site anymore. I don't find any good discussion here.

[polonius]

Mithrae wrote:

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong.

.

RESPONSE:
Here’s an official condemnation of a “declared and defined� tradition which existed for about 1700 years. Among other scripture it was based on Ps 104 that the earth cannot be moved.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�


Should we take it to be true, or can longstanding traditions be in error?

Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, but the writer has no other argument!

Also, beware of expressions such as "I can't help but believe...," "Everybody knows...", or "It's a proven fact that..."

[1213]

...The Gospel of John reports the exclusion of the Christians from the Jewish synagogues.....

Before I can continue, could you please show the scripture that says that?

RESPONSE:

See https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/a ... tastreamId

EXCLUSION OF CHRISTIANS FROM THE SYNAGOGUES KENNETH L. CARROLL, B.D., Ph.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN RELIGION, SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, DALLAS, TEXAS

“In three places the Gospel of John speaks of Christians being excluded from the synagogues by the Jews. The word used, in each of these occasions, is arroavvd'yaj'yos which means " excluded from the sacred assemblies of the Israelites ; excommunicated ". This word, often translated as " put out of the synagogue ", occurs only three times in the New Testament, with all three appearances being in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus himself, in one place, is pictured as foretelling that his followers would be excluded from the synagogue : " They will exclude you from their synagogues ; why, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is doing religious service to God " (xvi. 2).

The other two appearances of the word are located a few chapters earlier. In ix. 22 there is found " His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already made an agreement that if anyone acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, he should be excluded from the synagogues ". The third occurrence is in xii. 42 " Yet for all that, even among the leading men, many came to believe in him, but on account of the Pharisees they would not acknowledge it, for fear of being excluded from the synagogues."

It might save time if you read the Gospel of John before submitting questions.

Thank you for you answer. Now, earlier you claimed:

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

And that you say proves John is written about 95 AD.

The parts you are referring in the Bible are prophesy (that came true according to you) and things that did already happen or people were afraid will happen according to the Bible, also during the time of Jesus, not only about 95 AD. I think your reason to believe John is written about 95 AD is not good and reasonable. Fear and prophesy don’t mean that the things already happened.

[Mithrae]

Mithrae wrote:

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong.

.

RESPONSE:
Here’s an official condemnation of a “declared and defined� tradition which existed for about 1700 years. Among other scripture it was based on Ps 104 that the earth cannot be moved.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�


Should we take it to be true, or can longstanding traditions be in error?

Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, but the writer has no other argument!

Also, beware of expressions such as "I can't help but believe...," "Everybody knows...", or "It's a proven fact that..."

Just a small correction; it is Tired who alternately appealed to or wholesale dismisses 'Christian tradition,' not me.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Mithrae wrote:

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong.

.

RESPONSE:
Here’s an official condemnation of a “declared and defined� tradition which existed for about 1700 years. Among other scripture it was based on Ps 104 that the earth cannot be moved.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�


Should we take it to be true, or can longstanding traditions be in error?

Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, but the writer has no other argument!

Also, beware of expressions such as "I can't help but believe...," "Everybody knows...", or "It's a proven fact that..."

Just a small correction; it is Tired who alternately appealed to or wholesale dismisses 'Christian tradition,' not me.

There are strong and obvious similarities between the gospel and 1st epistle (eyewitness claims, style and themes) which are not shared by the 2nd and 3rd epistle, which themselves have very strong and obvious similarities with each other (salutation, style and length). The overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that the former pair had the same author and the latter pair had a different author. Obvious isn't necessarily the same thing as correct, but anyone suggesting otherwise will have to do a lot better than some vague, unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition' of later millennia.

You debunked the notion, so much a part of Christian tradition, that Gospel John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. Were written by the same individual. I simply did not choose to argue the point.

[Mithrae]

Mithrae wrote:

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong.

.

RESPONSE:
Here’s an official condemnation of a “declared and defined� tradition which existed for about 1700 years. Among other scripture it was based on Ps 104 that the earth cannot be moved.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�


Should we take it to be true, or can longstanding traditions be in error?

Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, but the writer has no other argument!

Also, beware of expressions such as "I can't help but believe...," "Everybody knows...", or "It's a proven fact that..."

Just a small correction; it is Tired who alternately appealed to or wholesale dismisses 'Christian tradition,' not me.

There are strong and obvious similarities between the gospel and 1st epistle (eyewitness claims, style and themes) which are not shared by the 2nd and 3rd epistle, which themselves have very strong and obvious similarities with each other (salutation, style and length). The overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that the former pair had the same author and the latter pair had a different author. Obvious isn't necessarily the same thing as correct, but anyone suggesting otherwise will have to do a lot better than some vague, unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition' of later millennia.

You debunked the notion, so much a part of Christian tradition, that Gospel John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. Were written by the same individual. I simply did not choose to argue the point.

In fact as you've just quoted I criticized your vague unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition,' and in a subsequent post (#18) I exlipicitly showed that your vague unreferenced appeal was entirely misleading at best, since 2nd and early 3rd century Chrisitans who approved of 1 John are rarely known to have approved 2 or 3 John too (let alone attributing the apostle as author!) and even into the 4th century at least one noteworthy catechist apparently rejected the latter pair.

Polonius was quite correct in his comment (quoting your words, but mistakenly thinking they were mine):
"Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, ..."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Mithrae wrote:

To take the position that Epistle 1 of John and Epistles 2 and 3 of John were written by different individuals is to take the position that 2,000 years of Christian tradition, that the apostle John wrote the Gospel, the three epistles and Revelation, is simply wrong.

.

RESPONSE:
Here’s an official condemnation of a “declared and defined� tradition which existed for about 1700 years. Among other scripture it was based on Ps 104 that the earth cannot be moved.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�


Should we take it to be true, or can longstanding traditions be in error?

Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, but the writer has no other argument!

Also, beware of expressions such as "I can't help but believe...," "Everybody knows...", or "It's a proven fact that..."

Just a small correction; it is Tired who alternately appealed to or wholesale dismisses 'Christian tradition,' not me.

There are strong and obvious similarities between the gospel and 1st epistle (eyewitness claims, style and themes) which are not shared by the 2nd and 3rd epistle, which themselves have very strong and obvious similarities with each other (salutation, style and length). The overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that the former pair had the same author and the latter pair had a different author. Obvious isn't necessarily the same thing as correct, but anyone suggesting otherwise will have to do a lot better than some vague, unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition' of later millennia.

You debunked the notion, so much a part of Christian tradition, that Gospel John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. Were written by the same individual. I simply did not choose to argue the point.

In fact as you've just quoted I criticized your vague unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition,' and in a subsequent post (#18) I exlipicitly showed that your vague unreferenced appeal was entirely misleading at best, since 2nd and early 3rd century Chrisitans who approved of 1 John are rarely known to have approved 2 or 3 John too (let alone attributing the apostle as author!) and even into the 4th century at least one noteworthy catechist apparently rejected the latter pair.

Polonius was quite correct in his comment (quoting your words, but mistakenly thinking they were mine):
"Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, ..."

Christians routinely declare that the "early church" knew full well who wrote both Gospel Matthew and Gospel John. And there was an "early church" in Jerusalem. But that was swept away with everything else in Jerusalem by the events of 70 AD. For the next 2 centuries "the church" as purely theoretical. There were scattered Christian communities worshiping in secret around the Mediterranean area out of fear of persecution. But no unified church. No physical edifice. No recognized hierarchy. No established doctrine or dogma. People largely assumed that God would guide them, so what they believed was what was true. There was a Gospel called the Gospel According to John, and there was an apostle named John. Of course they were the same.

But as you have indicated, Christian tradition is anything but authoritative. And if Christian tradition can not be counted on, then the fact is that there is nothing to link the Gospel According to John to the apostle other than the name John.

[Mithrae]

In fact as you've just quoted I criticized your vague unreferenced appeal to 'Christian tradition,' and in a subsequent post (#18) I exlipicitly showed that your vague unreferenced appeal was entirely misleading at best, since 2nd and early 3rd century Chrisitans who approved of 1 John are rarely known to have approved 2 or 3 John too (let alone attributing the apostle as author!) and even into the 4th century at least one noteworthy catechist apparently rejected the latter pair.

Polonius was quite correct in his comment (quoting your words, but mistakenly thinking they were mine):
"Watch out for statements that begin with “the Church has always believed (or taught)that…..

Frequently. It hasn’t, ..."

Christians routinely declare that the "early church" knew full well who wrote both Gospel Matthew and Gospel John. And there was an "early church" in Jerusalem. But that was swept away with everything else in Jerusalem by the events of 70 AD. For the next 2 centuries "the church" as purely theoretical. There were scattered Christian communities worshiping in secret around the Mediterranean area out of fear of persecution. But no unified church. No physical edifice. No recognized hierarchy. No established doctrine or dogma. People largely assumed that God would guide them, so what they believed was what was true. There was a Gospel called the Gospel According to John, and there was an apostle named John. Of course they were the same.

But as you have indicated, Christian tradition is anything but authoritative. And if Christian tradition can not be counted on, then the fact is that there is nothing to link the Gospel According to John to the apostle other than the name John.

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!

[Mithrae]

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.)