Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?

[polonius]

This seems like a question the answer to which is self-evident.

Not really. Was the gospel signed or does it state John wrote this gospel?

If not, how is it determined to have been written by John?

[otseng]

John 21:2 leaves a clue as to who wrote the fourth gospel.

Jhn 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

If John wrote the fourth gospel, why would he have included "and two other of his disciples"? There would be no reason to mention that since neither of these two are ever mentioned again in the chapter. Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned because they are the apostles. (If Nathanael was also Bartholomew.)

If TDWJL was the author, the he would be one of the two other disciples. He recognized the apostles by name and the non-apostles anonymously.

[JehovahsWitness]

As polonius reminded, the fourth gospel never mentions eating the last supper or the eucharist. TDWJL is never mentioned as participating in these events. So, is it not relevant or did he not participate in it?

As I think I mentioned as one of Jehovah's Witnesses I accept the gospels as a whole. This means that I take all four gospels as one accepting that if a relevant detail is not included in one it will be included in another. With this approach (which from what I can see unique to Jehovah's Witnesses), we don't need to pitch one gospel against another as if because John doesn't mention something and Mark does this casts some doubt on the event; rather the Jehovah's Witness approach is that if John (or Mark or Matthew or Luke) didn't mention an event, for whatever editorial reason, another will if this detail is important for the whole ("the whole" being the completed gospel narrative as preserved in the bible canon for the spiritual edification of future generations of the faithful- see 2 Tim 3:16, 17).

You speak for example of the fact that John's gospel doesn't mention the "eucharist" as if we must pitch his account against the others that do. The Witness approach however is that the gospel of John is like a "chapter" in a book and that to get the full picture we need all four "chapters"

To illustrate take four truthful and 100% accurate accounts of say, a wedding. One might mention the emotions felt by the attendees but make no mention of the vows, one might only mention what the bride and groom were wearing but not mention the emotions. A third might outline the formalities but make no mention of the clothes or the emotion. And a forth might reproduce the vows spoken and the legalities but mention nothing about the attendees, clothes or emotions.

The approach of many on this site, indeed, from what I cansee the majority of so-called "bible believers" seems to me to be, well, we cannot trust any of them fully because they don't all have the same details. In short returning to my illustration, since the forth doesn't mention vows can we really believe the couple were legally married at all and since the second doesn't mention clothes that writer might have been suggesting they got married in the nude. I'm being hyperbolic but essentially that is exactly why I think those that many who claim to believe all four gospels, are in such confusion and// or see the need to introduce major unsubstaniated narratives .

So I can see why you ask about John's not mentioning certain events and why for you this might imply that doubt has been cast on the whole, but I hope I have been able to communicate why for Jehovah's Witnesses this poses no problem at all. We take each seperate gospel as a part of a whole, a whole which we believe neglects no major detail or pivotal event



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Given #122 you can perhaps understand why I fail to see the relevance that Johns gospel fails to mention the "eucharist" .

Alternatively we can assume all relevant details were included and that whoever the beloved disciple was he was one of the twelve Apostles we know from the narrative were definitely present. If this later reading is accepted this would definitively narrow things down.

As polonius reminded, the fourth gospel never mentions eating the last supper or the eucharist. TDWJL is never mentioned as participating in these events. So, is it not relevant or did he not participate in it?

TDWJL is never mentioned as participating in these events. So, is it not relevant or did he not participate in it?

Which events are you referring to? "The event" of being present during the evening of the 14 Nissan? He most certainly was.

"The event" of laying next to Jesus at the table with at least eleven other disciples while food was still on the table? Ditto.

Now if, as we can reasonably assume from the narratives (all four combined), Jesus passed the bread and the wine in commemoration of his (Jesus) sacrifice, after the traditional Passover meal, and if, we have confidence that no major detail was omitted by the gospel writers, then we can reasonably assume "The beloved disciple" did not leave the table with Judas.

Again all this lends to the conclusion the beloved disciple was present when Jesus passed the bread and wine to the eleven faithful Apostles.



JW

[polonius]

Sorry. Jesus was already dead when the Passover meal took placed, at least according to John's gospel.

http://www.enlightener.org/Prepday.htm

In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is agreement that the Last Supper was the Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-15) after which Jesus was taken prisoner and finally condemned to death. In the Gospel of John this last meal takes place over chapters 13-17 and seems to be prior to the Passover meal (John 13:1). In John's Gospel, it seems that Jesus was taken prisoner prior to the Passover meal and Peter's denial of Jesus occurred prior to the Passover (John 18:28). In fact, the Gospel of John seems to have the crucifixion occurring on the same day the Passover lamb was slain (John 19:14), but this is not in unity with the other gospel accounts.

But a yarn written fifty years after the event is liable to contain errors!

[otseng]

There is only one man that the Bible explicitly says Jesus loved.

[Jhn 11:3, 5 KJV] 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. ... 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

And that man is Lazarus. So, he would be the only logical choice to equate "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to.

[otseng]

Again all this lends to the conclusion the beloved disciple was present when Jesus passed the bread and wine to the eleven faithful Apostles.

Even if we assume only the apostles were present with Jesus at the last evening meal, it does not necessarily lead to John. If nobody else arrived after the meal, this would lead to TDWJL also being an apostle. However, there's no internal evidence that says TDWJL must be John. He can't be Peter because Peter asked TDWJL to ask Jesus. And he can't be Judas. So, that leaves 10 other possible disciples. There are various inconsistencies that have been pointed out earlier of TDWJL being John. So, John is perhaps the least likely of all the apostles to be TDWJL.

There are several other possible scenarios for the final supper. One, as polonius suggests, is the account of the fourth gospel is a different night than the synoptic gospels. I'm not convinced of this. Another, which I lean towards, is TDWJL arrived after supper. A face value reading of the fourth gospel would support this. This alone is not evidence TDWJL is Lazarus, but it explains how he ties into that evening in the upper room.

[otseng]

To recap, here are the reasons John could not be TDWJL:

- John identifies himself in Revelation
viewtopic.php?p=957883#957883

- There are two ways to spell Jerusalem. One is used in Revelation and another different one is used in the fourth gospel.
viewtopic.php?p=957926#957926

- The fourth gospel does not mention events where only Peter, James, and John were present with Jesus (raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead, Jesus' transfiguration, and the prayer at Gethsemane), but all synoptic gospels record them
viewtopic.php?p=957927#957927

- John not mentioned in Luke of visiting the tomb of Jesus
viewtopic.php?p=958311#958311

- Fourth gospel said beloved disciple believed, but Mark says the 11 disciples did not believe
viewtopic.php?p=958311#958311

- Fourth gospel calls John the Baptist only by John and does not qualify it
viewtopic.php?p=958315#958315

- Events that John is recorded as participating at is not mentioned in the fourth gospel (preparation of the last supper)
viewtopic.php?p=958457#958457

- John could not have been known to the high priest
viewtopic.php?p=958462#958462

- Only Peter is recorded in the synoptic gospels as following Jesus when he was arrested
viewtopic.php?p=958462#958462

- John was considered "unlearned and ignorant" and not likely to have written the fourth gospel.
viewtopic.php?p=958780#958780

- Fourth gospel never mentions the calling of John as an apostle (whereas all the synoptic gospels do)
viewtopic.php?p=958782#958782

- Fourth gospel never lists the names of the apostles
viewtopic.php?p=958782#958782

- John was not humble
viewtopic.php?p=958784#958784

- In Luke, John is not mentioned to have visited the tomb
viewtopic.php?p=959459#959459

- John 21:2 mentions other disciples
viewtopic.php?p=959548#959548

- John lived several days journey from Jerusalem
viewtopic.php?p=959169#959169

Here are reasons Lazarus is TDWJL:

- Secret gospel of Mark
viewtopic.php?p=958213#958213

- Lazarus believed when he saw graveclothes in the tomb because he was in the same situation and understood the implications.
viewtopic.php?p=958311#958311

- Lazarus was known to the high priest and allowed entrance by the door keeper
viewtopic.php?p=958462#958462

- Better explains why Peter asked Jesus "Lord, and what this man?" in the final chapter of the fourth gospel
viewtopic.php?p=958661#958661

- Lazarus was from a wealthy family and most likely well educated to be able to write the fourth gospel.
viewtopic.php?p=958780#958780

- Lazarus more financially stable than John to be able to take care of Jesus' mother
viewtopic.php?p=958780#958780

- The structure of the fourth gospel puts the resurrection of Lazarus as a central event and as a foreshadowing event
viewtopic.php?p=958786#958786

- Lazarus lived a half hour walk from Jerusalem
viewtopic.php?p=959169#959169

- The Bible only explicitly records Jesus loving Lazarus
viewtopic.php?p=959627#959627

Why isn't Lazarus mentioned in the other gospels?

- He was considered inconsequential
viewtopic.php?p=958457#958457

Why did the fourth gospel change from using the name Lazarus to "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

- He wanted his account to be anonymous
viewtopic.php?p=958773#958773

Could TDWJL have participated in the last supper but simply not have recorded it?

- This is unlikely for various reasons
viewtopic.php?p=959546#959546

[JehovahsWitness]

There is only one man that the Bible explicitly says Jesus loved.

[Jhn 11:3, 5 KJV] 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. ... 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

And that man is Lazarus. So, he would be the only logical choice to equate "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to.

This is however based on the assumption that Jesus could only have had special affection for one individual. If we remove that assumption where does your rationale stand?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 127 by otseng]

I havent been arguing for John per se, I have been arguing against the beloved disciple being a thirteen attendee at the memorial supper and for him being one of the Apostles.

The reason for this is we definitely know this disciple was at Jesus side during at least part of the evening, if we do the gospel writers the courtesy of not neglecting the mention of a thirteen arrival at ( and departure from) the table then we have the said disciple not only participating in at least part of the evenings proceedings but most likely at the memorial promise. (Which if we take into account Jesus earlier promises, would make this disciple one of the twelve (12) specifically promised to be the twelve* that sit on twelve (not thirteen) thrones.). If we work backwards from what we are sure about instead of forwards from a list of assumptions, then we are more likely to come to a reasonable conclusion.

* It seems that after Jesus death the remaining Apostle understood the significance that the gruop number remained at 12 since they chose a replacement for Judas (who wasn't Lazarus).

The bottom line is in my opinion who the beloved disciple was is not important for our faith, if his identity was important he would have been positively identified. What in my opinion is more important is that if, in order to argue for a particular individual, one has to systematically undermine confidence in the gospel writers and in the overall integrity of the text, pitt one gospel against the other, assume important ommissions in the narrative on the part of one or all of the writers, and direct attention to gnostic accounts long held to be hazardous to the faith of sincere seekers of truth, we are solidly on the wrong path.

It's rather like a man trying to prove his wife didn't sleep with the postman by killing his wife. If it comes to such measures can we really have confidence in the conclusion? Rather leave the beloved disciple nameless than destroy faith in the accounts of who he loved to name him.






JW

[otseng]

There is only one man that the Bible explicitly says Jesus loved.

[Jhn 11:3, 5 KJV] 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. ... 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

And that man is Lazarus. So, he would be the only logical choice to equate "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to.

This is however based on the assumption that Jesus could only have had special affection for one individual. If we remove that assumption where does your rationale stand?

No other gospel singles out a particular person that Jesus loved. Only in the fourth gospel does it explicitly mention Jesus loved Lazarus and "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This is fairly strong evidence that the two are the same person. But, even if we throw out this evidence, there are still a host of evidence to support Lazarus being the author.

What in my opinion is more important is that if, in order to argue for a particular individual, one has to systematically undermine confidence in the gospel writers and in the overall integrity of the text, pitt one gospel against the other, assume important ommissions in the narrative on the part of one or all of the writers, and direct attention to gnostic accounts long held to be hazardous to the faith of sincere seekers of truth, we are solidly on the wrong path.

I don't believe it undermines confidence in the gospel writers. If anything, it has strengthened my confidence in the gospels. When I believed John had written the fourth gospel, certain passages did not make any sense (eg John 21). But, looking at passages now that I accept Lazarus was TDWJL, things are much clearer.

Which if we take into account Jesus earlier promises, would make this disciple one of the twelve (12) specifically promised to be the twelve* that sit on twelve (not thirteen) thrones.

To be clear, I do not claim Lazarus was an apostle.