Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[Tired of the Nonsense]

And the author of that chapter explicitly stated that the beloved disciple had written the gospel.

The identity of this "beloved disciple" was not revealed however, was it! The identification of the apostle John as the "unknown disciple" is tenuous at best, and yet represents the strongest "evidence" provided to establish such a connection, along with 2,000 years of Christian assumption, tradition, and wishful thinking of course. And yet we discover that Jesus had various unnamed "secret disciples." Joseph of Arimathea is presented as one. Acts 1:15 puts the number of Jesus' disciples immediately following his execution at about 120. Gospel John makes various references to unnamed disciples. There is nothing to link them to the apostle John however.

John 18
[15] And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
[16] But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

That the apostle John, a poor uneducated fisherman, knew the high priest by name and was confident enough to not only enter the palace but to personally intercede and gain entrance for Peter, who was uncomfortably reluctant himself, seems entirely unlikely. So who was this unnamed disciple. WE DON'T KNOW. But again I would like to point out that there is absolutely no direct connection between the unnamed disciples mentioned in Gospel of John and the apostle John. The identification of the author of Gospel John as the apostle is based almost entirely upon 2,000 years of Christians assuming that it must be so. And the same may be said for the Epistles of John.

There's every likelihood that, as a devout Jew, Paul was in Jerusalem during the Passover on which Jesus was crucified. However he doesn't claim to have personally met or been a follower of Jesus, and even regarding his vision of Jesus he makes a clear distinction between himself and the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Whether or not you believe Paul had some kind of vision or spiritual revelation, I don't think you could make a case that he made any demonstrably untrue claims in that regard.

You might make the case that "there's every likelihood" that I was standing in Dealey Plaza in Dallas the day Kennedy was assassinated, based on the fact that I am a patriotic American and that I was alive at the time. I was however hundreds of miles away sitting in my high school math class in California at the time. Paul was from Tarsus, a now dead city situated on what was then the coast of what is now modern Turkey, many hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. And while Paul may well have been alive at the time of the execution of Jesus, there is no particular "likelihood" that he was in Jerusalem on that particular high holy day. If he was present he must have been sorely unimpressed with the actual events, because he is first presented in Acts as an arch opponent of the new Christian movement, which he considered to be a vile heresy.

[Mithrae]

You might make the case that "there's every likelihood" that I was standing in Dealey Plaza in Dallas the day Kennedy was assassinated, based on the fact that I am a patriotic American and that I was alive at the time. I was however hundreds of miles away sitting in my high school math class in California at the time. Paul was from Tarsus, a now dead city situated on what was then the coast of what is now modern Turkey, many hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. And while Paul may well have been alive at the time of the execution of Jesus, there is no particular "likelihood" that he was in Jerusalem on that particular high holy day. If he was present he must have been sorely unimpressed with the actual events, because he is first presented in Acts as an arch opponent of the new Christian movement, which he considered to be a vile heresy.

He'd have no more reason to be immediately impressed than all the others who were also in Jerusalem. We don't know where Paul was at that stage, though his letters place in him the Syria/Judea/Arabia region around the time of his conversion (Galatians 1) and Acts puts him in Jerusalem before that. Passover was a yearly holy day on which many Jews made the trip to Jerusalem, and Paul names himself a particularly zealous Jew (Philippians 3). Perhaps a better analogy than Kennedy's assasination would be that "there's every likelihood" of a rabid football fanatic being present at any given Super Bowl. I agree that it's far from certain, but surely you must agree that it's a strong possibility. But that's neither here nor there

And the author of that chapter explicitly stated that the beloved disciple had written the gospel.

The identity of this "beloved disciple" was not revealed however, was it! The identification of the apostle John as the "unknown disciple" is tenuous at best, and yet represents the strongest "evidence" provided to establish such a connection, along with 2,000 years of Christian assumption, tradition, and wishful thinking of course. And yet we discover that Jesus had various unnamed "secret disciples." Joseph of Arimathea is presented as one. Acts 1:15 puts the number of Jesus' disciples immediately following his execution at about 120. Gospel John makes various references to unnamed disciples. There is nothing to link them to the apostle John however.

The 'beloved disciple' was present at the last supper, which narrows the field down a bit. There's also the association between Peter and this disciple (13:24, 18:15 & 20:2), which in the other gospels and Acts tends to be Peter and John. I agree we're left somewhat with guess-work as to who the beloved disciple was, though I wouldn't dismiss early church tradition as entirely irrelevant. Irenaeus (c. 180CE) attributes his information on John's gospel in part to Polycarp:

• 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 . . . .
  There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. ~ Against Heresies, III.4
  
  John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men... ~ Against Heresies, XI.1

Justin Martyr doesn't say who wrote it, but having resided for some time in Ephesus just a few decades after the gospel was written (c. 132CE, source), he quotes it confidently:

• For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue with Trypho, CV
  
  For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ~ 1st Apology, LXI

John 18
[15] And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
[16] But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

That the apostle John, a poor uneducated fisherman, knew the high priest by name and was confident enough to not only enter the palace but to personally intercede and gain entrance for Peter, who was uncomfortably reluctant himself, seems entirely unlikely.

It's certainly unusual, and probably the best (and only?) reason to seriously question that John was the beloved disciple. Maybe he was related to one of Annas' or Caiaphas' servants; he was 'known to' Caiaphas, not necessarily a close personal familiarity. He asked a servant to let Peter also into the courtyard to warm himself 'round the fire with all the servants and officials - certainly I for one don't know enough about Caiaphas' household security to guess at how mundane or unusual that may have been. But I agree that, to the extent that we're curious as to the identity of the beloved disciple, this point should also be considered as part of any educated guess.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

He'd have no more reason to be immediately impressed than all the others who were also in Jerusalem.

And no one WAS particularly impressed at the time it seems, given that the first account of the resurrected Jesus wouldn't be written for another quarter of a century or so. That's quite odd really, considering the hordes of resurrected dead people that were roaming the streets. That should have provoked some mention from someone, one would think.

We don't know where Paul was at that stage, though his letters place in him the Syria/Judea/Arabia region around the time of his conversion (Galatians 1) and Acts puts him in Jerusalem before that.

Paul's entrance into the story, in Acts, occurs some few years after the execution of Jesus. Four years or so is the figure given by conservative Christian scholars, based on their reading of Acts. I have no particular opinion on that exact figure, but clearly it was some few years after the execution. And there is the fact that nowhere does Paul claim to have been an eyewitness, and in fact he seems to have been somewhat envious of the apostles who were. Paul refers to himself as an apostle born of due time.

Passover was a yearly holy day on which many Jews made the trip to Jerusalem, and Paul names himself a particularly zealous Jew (Philippians 3).

Certainly many of the Jews who lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem could be expected to have made the trip. But Jews were spread all around the Mediterranean area, and traveling many hundreds of miles was dangerous and difficult. It could hardly have been normal practice for all expatriate non-Palestinian Jews to return to Jerusalem each year.

It's certainly unusual, and probably the best (and only?) reason to seriously question that John was the beloved disciple.

Well of course there is the fact that John was uneducated and therefore a poor candidate to have written a long coherent discourse like Gospel John, or much of anything else. Of course there remains the possibility that the Gospel was written by the followers of apostle John, which may well have included this mysterious John the Elder. And this would put Gospel John in pretty much the same company as Gospel Mark. Not direct testimony but second hand hearsay. And I have no doubt that both apostles John and Peter, as well as the rest of the apostles, began spreading the story of the resurrected Jesus shortly after his execution. Matthew 27:64 indicates that the chief priests believed there was a plot afoot by the disciples to spread the rumor that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and Acts tells us that is precisely what occurred. The bottom line here was also my opening line on this discussion on the other thread; we don't really know who wrote Gospel John or Gospel Matthew. All of the various eyewitness reports that Christians insist exist evaporate when exposed to detailed investigation. What we do have is a record of the stories that were being told decades after his death. Rather preposterous stories which it seems very few people took seriously at the time, and for good reason.

[Mithrae]

It's certainly unusual, and probably the best (and only?) reason to seriously question that John was the beloved disciple.

Well of course there is the fact that John was uneducated and therefore a poor candidate to have written a long coherent discourse like Gospel John, or much of anything else.

It seems strange that you emphasise that Paul might have moved around elsewhere in four years, but imply that John couldn't have learned new things in fifty! We've got an account that Paul was working from Jerusalem in the early chapters of Acts, yet you argue that means nothing regarding whether he was there a few years earlier. We've got an account that John was uneducated in the early chapters of Acts, which you argue is relevant regarding a work written more than fifty years later.

Of course there remains the possibility that the Gospel was written by the followers of apostle John, which may well have included this mysterious John the Elder. And this would put Gospel John in pretty much the same company as Gospel Mark. Not direct testimony but second hand hearsay.

Aye, and while that's a comfortable view to hold, there's no evidence for it. So far in this thread I've seen no actual evidence to suggest that the eyewitness claims by the author of the gospel, and the confirmation of those claims by the author of ch.21 are false.

What do we call views which are held without evidence?

Until you or someone else can provide evidence that it's not the case, I think it's fair to say that the author of ch.21 probably knew more about the matter than your unevidenced speculation. The gospel, it seems, was written by a disciple of Jesus.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Aye, and while that's a comfortable view to hold, there's no evidence for it. So far in this thread I've seen no actual evidence to suggest that the eyewitness claims by the author of the gospel, and the confirmation of those claims by the author of ch.21 are false.

What do we call views which are held without evidence?

There is of course the fact that the "eyewitnesses" are supposed to have claimed that dead people came out of their graves and that a reanimated corpse flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. There is some slight reason to suppose that such claims are false, it would seem, without being to terribly unreasonable. What do we call such views which are held without evidence? INSUPPORTABLE .

[Mithrae]

There is of course the fact that the "eyewitnesses" are supposed to have claimed that dead people came out of their graves and that a reanimated corpse flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. There is some slight reason to suppose that such claims are false, it would seem, without being to terribly unreasonable. What do we call such views which are held without evidence? INSUPPORTABLE .

The gospel of John doesn't say anything about a reanimated corpse flying up into the sky and disappearing into the clouds. That's a strawman - please try to stay on topic

Of course, people say strange things all the time. I knew a woman, working with forensic investigators, who said that she could sometimes talk to the dead people at the scenes they visited. Another person, a long-time friend, said that when he visited a Buddhist temple in his homeland with a list of questions, the monk he spoke to answered them all in order before he'd even had a chance to ask. Plenty of others I've known have told their stories about seances, or levitating objects, or demonic possession, or ghosts. I haven't yet met anyone who claims they were visited by aliens, but I'm sure that day will come too.

That said, is it your argument that the strange claims in John's gospel are evidence it wasn't written by a disciple of Jesus? I'd be interested in your reasoning.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The gospel of John doesn't say anything about a reanimated corpse flying up into the sky and disappearing into the clouds. That's a strawman.

This report of course is contained in Acts, written, according to all accounts, by the author of Gospel Luke, who was not present for the event. And it's insupportable. The hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem is reported in Gospel Matthew, which most Christians believe was written by the apostle Matthew, but almost certainly wasn't. It's certainly insupportable as well. Then there is the account of the resurrected Jesus contained in Gospel John, written by, well there is some dispute over that question. The claim is every bit as insupportable as the others however. At the very least it is fair to say that there is some real and valid reason to doubt it.

That said, is it your argument that the strange claims in John's gospel are evidence it wasn't written by a disciple of Jesus? I'd be interested in your reasoning why someone in their 80s wouldn't make strange claims.

Is it your position then that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John but did so as a delusional old man?

[Mithrae]

That said, is it your argument that the strange claims in John's gospel are evidence it wasn't written by a disciple of Jesus? I'd be interested in your reasoning why someone in their 80s wouldn't make strange claims.

Is it your position then that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John but did so as a delusional old man?

It's my position that there appears to be no valid evidence that John 21:24 is false.

I don't feel compelled to believe in the resurrection of Jesus just because a disciple wrote the gospel, though I wouldn't use the term delusional. The only thing I really know about his mental health is that he was obviously bright enough to write quite a sophisticated piece of literature.

However, it is my opinion that a subjective discomfort with the idea of a disciple's gospel is the main reason behind comments like your earlier "All of the various eyewitness reports that Christians insist exist evaporate when exposed to detailed investigation." That's simply not true - you still haven't provided any real evidence that the gospel wasn't written by the beloved disciple.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It's my position that there appears to be no valid evidence that John 21:24 is false.

I don't feel compelled to believe in the resurrection of Jesus just because a disciple wrote the gospel, though I wouldn't use the term delusional. The only thing I really know about his mental health is that he was obviously bright enough to write quite a sophisticated piece of literature.

However, it is my opinion that a subjective discomfort with the idea of a disciple's gospel is the main reason behind comments like your earlier "All of the various eyewitness reports that Christians insist exist evaporate when exposed to detailed investigation." That's simply not true - you still haven't provided any real evidence that the gospel wasn't written by the beloved disciple.

"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."

So BEGINS the Gospel of Thomas, a work written at roughly the same time as Gospel John. In it the author identifies himself as the apostle Thomas Didymos. Are we therefore left with no choice but to conclude that it must unconditionally be so because the author has said it was so? Or are there other, larger factors which would cause one to question it? What real evidence might one provide to positively prove that the Gospel WAS NOT written by the apostle Thomas?

Gospel John was written sixty or seventy years after the execution of Jesus in an age without doctors or modern medicine. This would have put the apostle John in his eighties or nineties at the time of it's writing in an age in which the average life expectancy was only about forty five. The Gospel of John is a reasonably well and coherently written piece of work, which has TRADITIONALLY been attributed to an individual who was specifically described as being illiterate. And in fact there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE at all which specifically ties the Gospel of John to the apostle John. The author simply says at the end of the Gospel "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." Are we left with no choice but to take the author at his word, since certainly there is no possibility one would ever falsify such a claim? Your identification of this disciple as being the apostle John who was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and therefore the author of the Gospel is without evidentury foundation. Nothing actually connects these dots together. "The disciple whom Jesus loved" is never identified. Bottom line is we don't really know who wrote Gospel John. We can't exclude the possibility that it was written by the apostle John. And perhaps the apostle Thomas really did write the Gospel of Thomas as well. There is ample reason to question both of these conclusions however.

[flitzerbiest]

This would have put the apostle John in his eighties or nineties at the time of it's writing in an age in which the average life expectancy was only about forty five.

To the best of my knowledge, this is an overestimate. A male born in the US in 1900 had a life expectancy of roughly forty-five years. Most estimates that I have seen for New Testament Era Palestine are five to ten years lower than you indicate. At any rate, the idea that any of the apostles would have been alive, let alone writing, circa 95 is a bit of a stretch. Given the gross differences between the Jesus of the synoptics and the Jesus of John, it seems far more reasonable to hypothesize (another) non-eyewitness author.

At any rate, as you have said, there is no direct evidence that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles, and plenty of evidence which would cast doubt on it.