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?

[Goose]

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

Actually the same is said of the rich man in Mark 10...

Actually the same could be said for anyone belonging to Jesus.

"Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end." - John 13:1

To argue there is only one mans the Bible says Jesus loved is a strange argument indeed.

[Goose]

Please present the evidence from the church fathers on why they attribute the author to John so we can review it in this thread.

Hey O,

I was going to wait until we were done with the above arguments but I decided to go ahead and put up the external evidence in support of Johns authorship of the fourth Gospel.

We can look the external evidence now or we can come back to it later once we feel weve adequately dealt with the arguments from your summary post.

With a little editing for relevance to John Ive cut and pasted my arguments and the evidence from this thread.

External evidence for John:

1. 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.


2. Evidence from the Muratorian fragment (c. 170 " 180 AD):

The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it... For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence " as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain...


3. Evidence from Irenaeus (lived c. 130 - 202 AD, wrote c. 180 AD):

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. " Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

As mentioned we have evidence that Irenaeus met Papias who had heard John. We also have evidence that Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John and others who knew Jesus.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. " Against Heresies 3.3.4


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

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence. - To Autolycus 2.22


5. Evidence from Clement of Alexandria (lived c. 150 " 215 AD, wrote c. 195 AD):

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement. " as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.5-7


6. Evidence from Tertullian (c. 200 AD):

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. " Against Marcion 4.2

"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning." - Against Marcion 4.5


7. Evidence from Origen (lived c. 184 " 253 AD, wrote c. 230 AD):

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John. " as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7


Also from that thread Mithrae contributed the following sources supporting Johns authorship...

I should also add that in the case of John there are actually multiple clear attributions pre-dating Irenaeus, which are particularly compelling for the fact that they come from outside the 'proto-orthodox' stream of thought:
- From Heracleon, c. 170CE ("The words, No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (John 1:18), were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.")
- From Ptolemaeus the Valentinian, as quoted by Irenaeus ("Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,"that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God. . . . And he expresses himself thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.")

[Mithrae]

I've only read the first and last couple of pages of the thread, but it seems the bottom line is that if we discount the attributions by 2nd century Christians we can't really know who wrote the fourth gospel. Most of the arguments back and forth are highly speculative and very weak, however interesting they may be.

To my mind, the strongest arguments for authorship by Lazarus - really the only ones worth considering - are that the fourth gospel does single him out as someone loved by Jesus (11:3) and that it's only after that point that we start hearing of 'the disciple Jesus loved. The strongest argument against authorship by Lazarus is the seeming absurdity of him wandering into the high priest's home after he'd supposedly been plotting to have him killed!

Besides the 2nd century attributions, the strongest argument for authorship by John is the fact that he and his brother James are not directly mentioned in the gospel: Paul and Acts both note the prominence of Peter and John in the early church, and while James died relatively early the synoptic gospels all note those three as Jesus' inner inner circle; it's extremely strange that of the three only Peter is named in the fourth gospel, but if it was written by John, concealing his own identity and omitting his dead brother makes some sense. The strongest argument against Johannine authorship is the high priest's home again; it's not impossible but quite difficult to imagine a Galilean fisherman having that kind of familiarity with the high priest.

From the internal evidence I'd say that they're pretty much tied as equally likely candidates, but the external evidence tilts the balance heavily in John's favour. Not 'just' the attributions by 2nd century Christians outlined by Goose, though those are really quite impressive compared to the other gospels or even many other ancient works, but there's also at least one other obscure point of interest:

- 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

According to Irenaeus (AH 3.11.1) John wrote his gospel partly in opposition to Cerinthus, and he elsewhere recounts a story told by Polycarp of John rushing out of a bath-house when Cerinthus entered in (3.3.4).

• [Cerinthus] represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.
  ~ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1

The fourth gospel doesn't mention Jesus' birth and instead emphasizes his pre-existence; it doesn't mention Jesus' baptism; and it doesn't describe the eucharist ritual. Why would those be missing, particularly the latter two uniquely among the gospels? There are some theories, but one is that it fits with the anti-Cerinthian intent of which Irenaeus wrote, omitting the events which would most likely be associated with the supposed arrival and departure of 'Christ' from Jesus' body. (It's also worth noting that while 1 John 4:2 might be interpreted as an anti-docetic message, it could just as likely be anti-Cerinthian, emphasizing that Jesus is Christ in the flesh rather than a temporary vessel of a purely spiritual Christ.)

In fact the fourth gospel elsewhere emphasizes the importance of the eucharist ritual far, far more than any of the other gospels - ch6, especially v52 forwards - so short of convoluted appeals to different layers of redaction its absence from the last supper scene really does require some kind of explanation. Imagining that Lazarus wouldn't write about something he wasn't present for (even though that's probably most of the gospel's contents!) really doesn't work at all. But it does seem consistent with the gospel being written in part with an anti-Cerinthian theme, as Irenaeus/Polycarp suggest of the apostle John.