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.

[Mithrae]

Passover MEAL(s) NISAN 14 and NISAN 15: According to Jewish Biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim: "A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate" — The Temple, 1874, pp. 186, 187 Thus if Jesus died after eating the "passover meal" but before the first day of the festival (Nisan 15) it would explain John's terminology and harmonize with the other accounts.

"Alfred Edersheim (7 March 1825 – 16 March 1889) was a Jewish convert to Christianity and a Biblical scholar known especially for his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883)." Sounds like a thoroughly objective source for 'harmonizing' the gospels

• Exodust 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
  
  Leviticus 23:4 ‘These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. 8 But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.’�

According to these passages, the Passover lamb was killed at twilight on the fourteenth day and eaten that night; according to the tradition of a new day beginning at sunset, that's the fifteenth day of the month, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The two seder meals Edersheim refers to was a tradition which existed only outside Israel: Due to the difficulties of communicating the official start of the month to distant communities rapidly enough, the fourteenth could fall on either of two days as far as they knew, so both days were observed as the start of the festival. That also meant two last days of the festival, and the tradition of an eight-day festival is still observed by many Orthodox and Conservative Jews outside Israel.

• https://reformjudaism.org/passover-7-or-8-days
  The festival calendar in the Torah is clear: Pesach begins on the 15th of Nisan and lasts for seven days, and the first and seventh days are what we would now call yom tov, a day off from work. On the first night, there is a seder, with matzah, maror, and the retelling of the Exodus.
  
  Back when the months of the Jewish calendar were determined by observations of the new crescent moon, eyewitnesses would bring their testimony to the rabbinical court in Jerusalem, and the court would sanctify the new month based on this testimony. Since a lunar month is about 29 ½ days, a Hebrew month (which has to have a whole number of days) can have either 29 or 30 days. So the court then had to get the word out to the rest of the Jewish world about which day had been declared the first of the month, so that everyone could observe the holidays on the same day. . . .
  
  Locations within two weeks' travel of Jerusalem (such as other cities in Israel) had no problem, since the holiday (Pesach or Sukkot) began on the 15th of the month, so they would receive the message in time for the holiday. But faraway communities such as Babylonia (modern Iraq) couldn't get the message in time, and didn't know when the new month had begun, though they could narrow the possibilities to two days. So to play it safe, they started observing each yom tov for two days, so that one of the days would be the correct date of the holiday (as determined in Jerusalem). In the case of Pesach, this meant that yom tov was not only the first and seventh day, but was now the first, second, seventh, and eighth days, so Pesach became an eight-day holiday.

###

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

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

That is what those gospels say, but it also historically impossible: That would mean that Jesus' arrest by Jewish guards, overnight trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin and burial by Jewish followers would be occurring on the 15th, on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, during which no work was to be done.

In John’s gospel, the “last supper� is described as a meal that takes place BEFORE the Passover (John 13:1…This enables John to make the theological and spiritual point that Jesus, the true “Lamb of God,� dies at the exact hour that the lambs that will be used for the Passover meals are being sacrificed in the Temple.

You may not like this "spiritual point" that you're reading into the fourth gospel, but that is the scenario which is historically far more plausible. And let's be honest, that 'spiritual point' is pretty weak to begin with; as above, in theory at least the Passover lambs were supposed to be killed at twilight, not mid-afternoon as Jesus was. Whereas the synoptic gospels have Jesus explicitly associating the Lord's Supper as the continuation/successor to Passover, a much less subtle point which seems as or more likely to be the later development. As I've already pointed out in post #15 and Goose hinted at in post #36, even Mark seems to base its final chapters on an earlier underlying 'passion narrative' which presupposes Jesus' crucifixion before the Passover:

• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
  Theissen begins his discussion by observing that there lies behind Mark a narrative that presupposes a chronology that corresponds to the one found in John, in which Jesus dies on the preparation day before the Passover. Theissen states (pp. 166-167):
  • In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.

You can keep ignoring this information if that is what you prefer, but let us be clear here: What you are doing is rejecting the historical scenario based on a theological point you perceive in it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 29 by Mithrae]

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


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

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

Considering the fact that I have now twice explicitly highlighted the extensive ambiguities and differences of opinion in early Christian views about the three epistles (in posts #18 and #27), at this point it's hard to see how this is anything other than brazen dishonesty. Good day to you sir.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 29 by Mithrae]

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


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

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

Considering the fact that I have now twice explicitly highlighted the extensive ambiguities and differences of opinion in early Christian views about the three epistles (in posts #18 and #27), at this point it's hard to see how this is anything other than brazen dishonesty. Good day to you sir.

And yet never once have I denied that Gospel John, the Epistles of John, and Revelation were NOT uniformly written by the apostle, as 2,000 years of Christian tradition would have us believe. As you yourself have indicated. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

The "actual source material" for Gospel Matthew was largely plagiarized from Gospel Mark, by the way. Much of what remains that is unique to Gospel Matthew is not sustained either by the historical record, or the other Gospels.

[JehovahsWitness]

• Exodust 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.
  
  Leviticus 23: 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.

- emphasis mine.

Firstly the scriptures are quite clear that there was to be TWO events: one on the 14th and one on the 15th, there is little doubt that ancient Jews observed "the Passover" as instructed on the 14th Nisan and kept the festival with started according to scripture on the following day.

The two seder meals Edersheim refers to was a tradition which existed only outside Israel

Professor Jonathan Klawans, Professor of religious studies, Boston University and a specialist in ancient Judaism, noted:

“Rabbinic literature . . . does not even claim to be telling us how the Seder [Passover meal] was performed before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

This being the case, the historial existence (that you affirm) of the Passover meal preceding the start of the Festival and the biblical record of the requirements as outlined above, adds credence to the gospel accounts which, as I outlined in my earlier post (#39) clearly favors a passover meal before the start of the seven day festival (Nisan 15).

To learn more please go to posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, INERRANCY and ...THE RESSURECTION EVENTS

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]

FOOTNOTE:

The traditions of modern day Judaism after major reforms is not the point under discussion. The point of contention is when Jesus and first century Jews would have eaten the Passover meal. The article for the most part is a "red herring" as it clearly deals with the determination of the 7-day festival and not with the question of when the passover meal was to be eaten.

... to play it safe, they started observing each yom tov for two days, so that one of the days would be the correct date of the holiday (as determined in Jerusalem)... so Pesach became an eight-day holiday.
https://reformjudaism.org/passover-7-or-8-days

In short distant communities observed and 8 day festival to cover for any possibility of error. Interesting but irrelevant. as the point of discussion is neither what traditions where held in distant lands nor when they started the 7-day festival, but what we can glean about the first century Passover meal in Jerusalem, on which the article you quoted from makes no comment.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]


WHEN WAS THE LAMB OF THE 14TH EATEN?

According to these passages, the Passover lamb was killed at twilight on the fourteenth day and eaten that night [...], that's the fifteenth day of the month,...

From your comment above I conclude you are suggesting that the lamb (of the passover meal) was slaughtered some time on the 14th and kept for 12-14 hours to be eaten the following night of the 15th. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your comment) Let's look at that again shall we:

Exodus 12:6- 10: "You must care for it until the 14th day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it at twilight. [...] 8 “‘They must eat the meat on this night....10 You must not save any of it until morning - NWT

A careful examination of the scripture reveals that the lamb was to be killed on the 14th and eaten "that night", none of the slauther victim was to be preserved past the morning. Which morning? logically the morning following its slaughter otherwise the statement is redundant (ie it can be kept past "the morning" of the 14th but not past "the morning" of the 15th ...) Logically then, the window for the meal was between sunset and the dawn of the 14th. Keeping the passover victim until the following morning would have violated the law. In short, if the passover victim had to be slaughtered on the 14th ("twilight") and eaten in the "night" not passing the any morning barrior* it had to be eaten the evening of the of the 14th not the night of the 15th.

* since the day began at sunset, the morning (sunrise) was always the same day

The historical context supports this reading. The passover meal was to commemorate the Israelites' last meal in Egypt. The Israelites put the blood of the passover victim on their doorposts on the night of the 14th Nisan; they were instructed to eat the meal which they did "that night". Exodus 12 explicitly states that by midnight of that same night the first borns had been struck and the Moses was summoned to take the Israelites and go. The instruction to commemorate the events of that night obviously did not allow for the victim to be kept for 12 to 24 hours, past the morning following its slaughter and eaten the following night (by which time the Israelites were well on their way out of Egypt)

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 44 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 45 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]

WHEN WAS THE LAMB OF THE 14TH EATEN?

According to these passages, the Passover lamb was killed at twilight on the fourteenth day and eaten that night; according to the tradition of a new day beginning at sunset, that's the fifteenth day of the month,...

From your comment above I conclude you are suggesting that the lamb (of the passover meal) was slaughtered some time on the 14th and kept for 12-14 hours to be eaten the following night of the 15th. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your comment) Let's look at that again shall we:

Exodus 12:6- 10: "You must care for it until the 14th day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it at twilight. [...] 8 “‘They must eat the meat on this night....10 You must not save any of it until morning - NWT

A careful examination of the scripture reveals that the lamb was to be killed on the 14th and eaten "that night", none of the slauther victim was to be preserved past the morning.

From all these replies it looks like you've had a chance to flex your analytical muscles from this question And to be fair, if you suppose that Jesus knew/intended that he'd be killed the next day, you can certainly suppose that he and his disciples shared a 'passover' meal on the evening which began the 14th of Nisan. According to Mark Jesus had already declared himself the Lord of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath had been made for the good of men, not vice versa, so there's no very obvious Christian theological reason why he might not have decided on a more convenient time for the passover meal too - even though it was supposed to be on the evening which started the 15th of Nisan.

Those verses from the Torah quoted above seem quite unambiguous; the chosen animal was to be kept until the 14th day of the month, and then killed at 'twilight' - according to some of your quotes, that may mean simply in the afternoon of the 14th - and eaten that night. According to the tradition of a new day beginning in the evening, that Passover meal was therefore to be eaten at the start of the 15th day of the month. Again, that seems to be unambiguous and indisputable. It also makes sense (and conforms with ongoing Jewish tradition) that this Passover day was the specified day of rest, the first day of the weeklong festival.

Admittedly, the seeming emphasis on the 14th in those passages raises the question of whether that tradition of a new day beginning in the evening was held by the bronze-age source of those passages. That's why I included that caveat, which you snipped from your quote above. If the original source didn't hold that tradition, then the evening following the 14th day would still be the 14th, and that seeming emphasis on the 14th would make a lot more sense.

But there doesn't seem to be any way around the fact that the Passover lamb was to be kept until the 14th day, and the meal eaten on that subsequent evening. So if one believes that Matthew, Luke and canonical Mark are right in their claim that Jesus shared a Passover meal with his disciples, and also believe either that John was correct in saying that he died on the Preparation day for the feast or that the trial before the Sanhedrin historically could not have happened on that first day of the feast, then one must suppose that Jesus again flaunted tradition by having his Passover meal a day early.

Personally I suspect that Matthew, Luke and canonical Mark reflect a later development of explicitly identifying the Lord's Supper as a continuation/successor to Passover. But admittedly Jesus having his Passover meal a day early would not be entirely out of character either.

[Goose]

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

I think you may be Question Begging here.

Lazarus wasn’t an Apostle or a full time companion of Jesus.

The fact is Lazarus is never directly referred to as a disciple. Strange, to say the least, if he was in fact the author of John. Lazarus is referred to simply as a man (John 11:1) and called a “friend� by Jesus (11:11). This is significant because one did not have to be an apostle or a “full time companion of Jesus,� as you’ve put it, in order to be referred to directly by the author of John as a disciple.

�After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews� - John 19:38

And we know from the text Joseph definitely wasn’t an apostle or “full time companion of Jesus.�

So why doesn’t the GoJohn refer to Lazarus as a disciple if Lazarus wrote it? Why would Lazarus refer to Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple and not himself? Seems to be a rather large oversight on Lazarus’ part if he was indeed the author.

This one of the major holes in your Lazarus theory because the author had to be a disciple.

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

There has already been a number of lengthy responses regarding this from JW and Mithrae. We could start a whole thread on this topic alone. So I will keep my comments fairly brief here.

You are reading far more into the text of John than is there. Most of these kind of arguments stem from an expectation of precise chronological timelines from a genre of literature and era that simply did not do that.

• â€�Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. “ – John 13:1-4

John doesn’t “describe� the last meal as taking place before the Passover. In fact, he says nothing at all explicitly about when the meal took place. All John commits to happening before the festival of Passover is Jesus’ knowledge that his time had come to die. John doesn’t make any explicit timeline declaration of events beyond that. He simply changes thought in verse (2) as indicated by the precursor καὶ(And) turning to the events at the supper.

Now I’m certainly willing to concede the natural reading of the text of John in the opening of chapter 13 could easily lead one to the conclusion you are arguing, i.e. John places the last meal before the festival of the Passover. But I don’t think that conclusion is necessarily demanded by the text. Especially when we consider my comment above that the Gospels weren’t written in a strict chronological fashion.

But let’s assume for a moment there is a contradiction between the Gospels on this point. The salient question then becomes is that enough to force us to conclude the Gospel of John could not have been written by an eyewitness? I don’t think so. We should expect some discrepancies between accounts on the secondary details even if they are eyewitness sources. In fact, the presence of discrepancies helps insure some independence. After all, when the Gospels are in overt agreement it is often argued there has been borrowing of material.

In the end your argument boils down entirely to a speculative one regarding what an eyewitness would say or would get right. Hardly enough to outweigh the arguments and evidence for traditional authorship.

RESPONSE: Maybe they wore sundials! From that hour and within that hour have the same meaning.

No they don’t. “From that hour� is a commencement point with no implied time limitations. Bob married his high school sweet heart yesterday at noon and from that hour she was his wife. “Within that hour� has a very clear time limitation - it’s all within an hour. Yesterday from noon until one o’clock Bob was getting married and within that hour his high school sweet heart became his wife. If you really think they have the same meaning and honestly can’t see how they are different then I don’t see how arguing this particular point further with you will be fruitful.

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

Lazarus was a disciple not an Apostle. He did not spend all his time with Jesus.

Neither was Joseph of Arimathea but he was explicitly called a disciple by the author of John.

He was not a witness to everything they were. (But in fact, none of the gospel writers were actually Apostles)

Doesn’t change the outcome. If you are arguing Lazarus was the author of the GoJohn you arguing for an eyewitness. An eyewitness who was present for the crucifixion, resurrection events, etc. An eyewitness who had intimate contact with Jesus and the disciples. It wouldn’t matter hardly at all that Lazarus wasn’t a disciple in this case. He would carry virtually the same historical weight. So by all means, continue to champion the Lazarus hypothesis.

[polonius]

[quote="JehovahsWitness"]
[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]

FOOTNOTE:

The traditions of modern day Judaism after major reforms is not the point under discussion. The point of contention is when Jesus and first century Jews would have eaten the Passover meal.

RESPONSE: The Passover meal would be eaten on Passover. The Jews began counting the hours from 6 pm the night before the Passover day and ended that day at 6 pm

[JehovahsWitness]

Those verses from the Torah quoted above seem quite unambiguous; the chosen animal was to be kept until the 14th day of the month, and then killed at 'twilight' [...] that Passover meal was therefore to be eaten at the start of the 15th day of the month.

No, you are mistaken on that; may I respectfully draw your attention to what the word "twilight" actually means.




Twilight: While there is indeed some diversity of opinon as to how the hebrew term in Exodus 12:6 should be translatied (some Bible versions use the expression "between the two evenings" others, including the Jewish Tanakh, translate it “at twilight.� Still others, “at dusk,� “during the evening twilight,� or “around sundown"), the concesus unanimously implies around the time of the setting of the sun. It is generally agreed that this time (sunset) marked the beginning of the Jewish day.

CONCLUSION: So it seem a reasonable reading is that the lamb was to be slaughtered after the sun had set (dropped below the horizion) but while there was still light. Since the Jewish day began at that moment, that would place the slaughter of the lamb for the passover meal at the start of Nisan 14. and allow for it to be eaten on the same night (14th) and for none of it to be left past the morning (of the 14th).

JW



My answers in no way rest on the theological implication of Jesus having the authority to change tradition but on a (I hope) logical analysis of the available texts. Whereas the reading you propose not only disregards the historical continuity of the actual meal (a commemoration of the last meal in Egypt) , fails to reflect an accurate understanding of the actual words in the text (ie "twilight" "that night" ...) and doesn't take into account traditional time keeping (twilight /sunset marking the beginning of the day ie, 14th not the 15th).

In light of the above and coming full circle, if the first century Jews understood the scripture as explained above we have Jesus eating his passover meal on the night of the 14th (after the "twilight" slaughter of the animal - which was indeed the 14th according to Jewish timekeeping) and the 7-day festival of unfermented cakes starting the following night (15th). Thus John's references to Jesus' trial on being held on the "preparation of the passover" can reasonably be understood to be a reference to the festival (not the meal). This would then harmonize with the other gospel references while respecting the integrity of the source texts in Exodus and Leviticus under examination.