Gospel of John

[polonius]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

[Elijah John]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

I think the late date (AD 90) of the GoJ's authorship arouses suspicion against the possiblity that it was actually the apostle John who penned it.

[oldbadger]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

Most scholars suggest that G-John was written circa 110-120CE,
If John BarZebedee had been, say, 20 yrs when Jesus was arrested, convicted etc in circa 30 CE, then he would have been about 100+ yrs old........!

I should think that Galilean peasant life expectancy was generally not much more than, say, 50 yrs?

I have also read that 'John' was some leader of dignitary on the Island of Ephesus and that the writer named the gospel to please same?

One explanation for the extraordinary claims in G-John, and for the wonderful descriptions in Revelations is that an hallucinogenic mushroom grows (or grew) abundantly on Ephesus and that the author may have had a penchant for same?

[onewithhim]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

John was merely the last of the Apostles to die. He was old when on the Isle of Patmos, but certainly not feeble-minded. He was among the first to be introduced to Jesus and had a close relationship with Him throughout His ministry. He was assigned to take care of Mary, Jesus' mother, after His death. John was well equipped to write about things he had long kept inside, and finally did so probably after his imprisonment on Patmos.

Christians of the early 2nd-century church accepted John as the writer of the Gospel of John and thought of it as an unquestioned part of the canon of inspired Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, all of whom were of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, testify to John's writership. Moreover, much internal evidence that John was the writer is to be found in the book itself. The intimacy of the GoJ indicates that he was not only an Apostle, but one of the inner circle of three---Peter, James, and John---who went with Jesus on special occasions. (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33) Of these three, James is eliminated as the writer because he was martyred by Herod Agrippa I about 44 A.D., long before the GoJ was written (Acts 12:2), and Peter is eliminated because he is mentioned along with the writer at John 21:20-24. In these closing verses, the writer is referred to as "the disciple Jesus used to love," similar things being said several times in the gospel, though the name "John" is never mentioned.

The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 A.D.) quotes Iranaeus as saying: "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (The Ecclesiastical History, V, viii, 4)


There is no reason to believe that John did NOT write the Gospel.

[oldbadger]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

John was merely the last of the Apostles to die. He was old when on the Isle of Patmos, but certainly not feeble-minded. He was among the first to be introduced to Jesus and had a close relationship with Him throughout His ministry. He was assigned to take care of Mary, Jesus' mother, after His death. John was well equipped to write about things he had long kept inside, and finally did so probably after his imprisonment on Patmos.

Christians of the early 2nd-century church accepted John as the writer of the Gospel of John and thought of it as an unquestioned part of the canon of inspired Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, all of whom were of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, testify to John's writership. Moreover, much internal evidence that John was the writer is to be found in the book itself. The intimacy of the GoJ indicates that he was not only an Apostle, but one of the inner circle of three---Peter, James, and John---who went with Jesus on special occasions. (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33) Of these three, James is eliminated as the writer because he was martyred by Herod Agrippa I about 44 A.D., long before the GoJ was written (Acts 12:2), and Peter is eliminated because he is mentioned along with the writer at John 21:20-24. In these closing verses, the writer is referred to as "the disciple Jesus used to love," similar things being said several times in the gospel, though the name "John" is never mentioned.

The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 A.D.) quotes Iranaeus as saying: "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (The Ecclesiastical History, V, viii, 4)


There is no reason to believe that John did NOT write the Gospel.

There are many questions about the authorship of G-John.
That the book was written on Ephesus is probably true, but the big problem with claims that John BarZebedee wrote it is that the information, timeline, mission length, geographical notes, miracle descriptions and more differ so far from G-Mark as to have surely been written by somebody who certainly did not have any intimate knowledge of Jesus or his mission whatsoever.

G-John did not mention Jesus with the Baptrist, or his casting of demons, or his reference to 'Son of Man'. In G-John all of this was beneath the new trinitarian God, and Jesus needed to become 'Son of God', and produce much more imnpressive miracles such as brininging back the dead. All very questionable.

G-John dores offer some useful information, here and there, such as Judas's family name, BarSimon, etc, but on the whole, G-John takes exaggeration and hyperbole into the area of total deception, imo.

The hallucogenic mushrooms of Ephesus might offer the answer to some of G-John, and much of Revelations.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by oldbadger]

Regardless of who authored it, John the Gospel is part of the bible canon, and was well accepted by the early Christian community as an authentic commentary of the life of Jesus. There is no real evidence against its having been authored by the Apostle John, and as onewithehim has so well presented, there is enough to safely conclude at the very least that it probably was.

If we put aside conjecture, confirmation bias and quite frankly woefully unacademic and unfounded speculation, this very detailed, logical and deeply personal gosple bears all the hallmarks of an eyewitness account and none that it was written by someone strung out on drugs.

[oldbadger]

Regardless of who authored it, John the Gospel is part of the bible canon, and was well accepted by the early Christian community as an authentic commentary of the life of Jesus. There is no real evidence against its having been authored by the Apostle John, and as onewithehim has so well presented, there is enough to safely conclude at the very least that it probably was.

Sadly not.
G-John did not agree with the synoptics in much at all.
It stretches a mission of 11-12 months into about 3 years, for a start.
How the other gospels could have overlooked, say, Lazarus, when they give detail of Jesus's trip to Jerusalem, such a variation would worry any jury or group.

If we put aside conjecture, confirmation bias and quite frankly woefully unacademic and unfounded speculation, this very detailed, logical and deeply personal gosple bears all the hallmarks of an eyewitness account and none that it was written by someone strung out on drugs.

Sadly not.
Historical judgement, based upon the balance of probabilities, must surely exclude the 100+ year old John BarZebedee from being the author.

Only blind faith can place John as the author. imo.

[JehovahsWitness]

G-John did not agree with the synoptics in much at all.
It stretches a mission of 11-12 months into about 3 years, for a start.How the other gospels could have overlooked, say, Lazarus, when they give detail of Jesus's trip to Jerusalem, such a variation would worry any jury or group.

Not unless this hypothetical jury are idiots.

The writer clearly stated his intention to present details that had not previously dealt with; having stated the reasons for his editorial decisions there are obviously no grounds, short of dogged determination to ignore facts in favor of deeply held belief, to see the differences, which never contradict the other narratives as problematic. For example, if we take all four gospels as a group we can conclude Jesus ministry to have been 3 and a half years in length. No one writer explicitly states the length of Jesus' ministry, so there can be no contradiction therein. You are wrong that they do not agree, silence is not disagreement it is silence.

Historical judgement, based upon the balance of probabilities, must surely exclude the 100+ year old John BarZebedee from being the author.

Sadly you are wrong, imo. Historical judgement, based upon the balance of probabilities, surely does not exclude John BarZebedee from being the author. While he may well have been in early to mid-90s when he penned the Gospel, people do live well into their nineties. To say such a conclusion "excludes" the Apostle is to suggest that such a thing is impossible as is demonstratively not the case.

[dio9]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

nobody knows really but the Gospel is very philosophical. Bible scholars call it high Christology. That just means Christ is defined as divine.
Let me ask you ,
do you think a Jewish fisherman was even literate enough to write such a Gospel and to have such a command of Greek language and the Greek philosophical concepts we find in the Gospel of John.
I say John would have had to have a Greek speaking translator and scribe at least , like Peter did using Mark , if Peter even commissioned Mark to write his Gospel. The Gospel of John is not philosophically Jewish. John was a Jew, one of the pillers of the Jerusalem church , with James and Peter. The Gospel of John could not have been written by one who Paul would call a Judahizer .It can't have been written by the historic apostle John. I don't believe John would say Jesus was Divine, its just too far away from his Jewish roots. Like all the apostles John was a Jew following a Jewish Rabbi teacher named Jesus. To go from that mind set to the author of the Gospel is just too radical a change.

[oldbadger]

Not unless this hypothetical jury are idiots.

I'm sorry to tell you that a majority of objective scholars doubt that John Bar Zebedee wrote G-John, most of the events of its description of that week leading to passover, etc. None of them are idiots, and I doubt that they would call any others in such a debate or discussions idiots.

The writer clearly stated his intention to present details that had not previously dealt with; having stated the reasons for his editorial decisions there are obviously no grounds, short of dogged determination to ignore facts in favor of deeply held belief, to see the differences, which never contradict the other narratives as problematic. For example, if we take all four gospels as a group we can conclude Jesus ministry to have been 3 and a half years in length. No one writer explicitly states the length of Jesus' ministry, so there can be no contradiction therein. You are wrong that they do not agree, silence is not disagreement it is silence.

G-John does not include the demonstration or picketing within the temple that week! Jesus visited the temple three days in a row, demonstrated against money-changers and sacrificial dove sellers, picketed the temple courts...... and then picketed them and argued against the priests again on the third day, and G-John mentions none of this? G-John is not prepared to even mention such crimes against the temple. Indeed, it stuffs the demonstration into an early part of Jesus's mission, some would call this an oversight. I would call it an utter deception.

Sadly you are wrong, imo. Historical judgement, based upon the balance of probabilities, surely does not exclude John BarZebedee from being the author. While he may well have been in early to mid-90s when he penned the Gospel, people do live well into their nineties. To say such a conclusion "excludes" the Apostle is to suggest that such a thing is impossible as is demonstratively not the case.

Older than mid-90's. If John was, say, 20yrs when Jesus died, and if G-John was writ circa 110-120 CE, then 115-30+20=well over a century in age. Just how long could a peasant boatman survive on average?

G-John does offer some descriptions which do seem to be more accurate than the synoptics, but some Christians who believe that the bible cannot be wrong anywhere do have difficulty with such points.