Irenaeus and the Gospels

[Confused]

I tried to get this across on another thread I started about the validity of the Gospels, and didn't get many valid arguments, so I am going to try this again, this time with a lot more information.

In 1945 the Nag Hammada gnostic writings were discovered. Some of the writings are anonymous such as the Gospel of truth, while others were allegedly written by Jesus closest followers, including the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Thomas (which consists of 114 sayings of Jesus, many previously unknown), the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Judas. In some cases, such as with the Gospel of Judas, though the most oldest copy we have is dated ~280 AD, we know that it existed at least 100 years before because Irenaeus, the famous heresy hunter, mentions it in his 5 volume work that attacked heretics (Gospel of Judas by Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gegor Wurst: 2006).

Of interest to this thread is the gnostic component to these "heretical" texts. The Gospel of Judas actually claims that there are many Gods and the one who created this world is actually a lesser God. He back this up with references to how Christ laughed at his disciples as they prayed over their meal, and the fact that Christ specifically tells His disciples that "none in their generation will know who He really is".

The Hypothesis the Gospel of Judas seems to lay out is that some men are born with a divineness within them and some aren't. Those who aren't will simply cease to exist once they die, those who are will ascend to the level of the true Gods. Those with the divinity need only shed the skin of their weaker God (ie human form) to transcend. Jesus came to earth from the realm of Barbelo to reveal secret mysteries that could bring salvation.

The questions for debate:
1) Why do we give more credit to Gospels and books found in the bible today considering the obvious bias that went into creating them? We claim that it is because we know that those in the bible are "proven" to be written close to the time of Christ, but we don't really know who wrote them. Was Mark the only true author and Matthew and Luke just expanded on it? Or did the church write what they wanted written, then include them in their book to make their institution look favorable? As shown with the Gospel of Judas, we know it existed at least as early as 180 AD, but we don't know how many times it had been written before and rewritten. And since Irenaeus himself makes reference to it, we can at least assume it wasn't that late that it was written.
2) If the Gospels mentioned here are so false and inflammatory, then why did Irenaeus find it so crucial to condemn them.
3) If there was no validity whatsoever to these Gospels, then why did Irenaeus mention them and even make up a civilization that was false to discredit them? I am directly referring to Irenaeus Of Lyon, in Against Heresies advocating of Cain, the wicked brother of Abel, composing some such as the Gospel of Judas, calling themselves "Cainites" when aside from his accusations, there is no historical evidence that any group in early Christianity referred to themselves as such. Nor is Cain even mentioned in the Gospels.

[Easyrider]

The questions for debate:
1) Why do we give more credit to Gospels and books found in the bible today considering the obvious bias that went into creating them?

What bias are you talking about? Can't people who knew Jesus and the events of his life, death, and resurrection record those facts without being superficially labeled as biased?

We claim that it is because we know that those in the bible are "proven" to be written close to the time of Christ, but we don't really know who wrote them.

Only if you completely ignore a great deal of traditional evidence can you make that statement. For instance, on Matthew's authorship:

The second-century writer Papias shares the following concerning Matthew: Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "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."

In addition, many of the disciples / Jewish converts had migrated to Antioch (in Syria) - Acts 11:19-27 - which is where many believe Matthew wrote his Gospel. So, according to the best information available, Matthew was written in a time prior to Luke, in a different language, to a different audience, and in a locale far less susceptible to Roman persecution.

Irenaeus testified on the authority of Polycarp (John's disciple) that John wrote the Gospel that bears his name while he was at Ephesus. Clement of Alexandria also confirmed John's authorship. In 2 Peter, Peter himself is identified as the author (3:1) who also wrote the first epistle (3:1). The first epistle idenfies Peter as the author (1:1). The author of 1st Peter identifies himself to be an eyewitness to Christ and his suffering (5:1). We also know that Mark was a close associate and interpreter for Peter (i.e. Papias and Irenaeus) who wrote Mark based on Peter's personal accounts. So, although there will always be skeptics such as yourself, the evidence seems pretty clear to me.

Now let's look at Mark:

Mark Authorship

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

“Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.”

Papias--Asia Minor, circa 125 AD--(quoted by Eusebius., HE, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."
Justin Martyr--Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD--(In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his 'Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee 'Boanerges,' which means 'Sons of Thunder,' " etc.

Irenaeus --Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD--(Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."

Clement of Alexandria --circa 200 AD--(Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."

Tertullian--North Africa, circa 207 AD--(Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."

Origen--Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD--("Comm. on Mt" quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."

Eusebius--Caesarea, circa 325 AD--(Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."

Epiphanius --Cyprus, circa 350 AD--(Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."

Jerome--East and West, circa 350 AD--(De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."
Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... BE/ID/5808

You just don't have the wealth of confirmations for your "Gnostic" Gospels that you do for the Biblical Gospels.

One more thing: The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" says you have to become a man before you can be saved. Are you buying into that one too?

[Easyrider]

Luke Authorship

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259). See also Acts of the Apostles - Authorship.

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century, first by Marcion (c. 160), the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), and Irenaeus (c. 180) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two things: first, the use of "we" in Acts chapters 16, 20, 21 and 27 suggests the writer traveled with Paul; second, the "medical language" employed by the writer is, in the opinion of the Roman Catholic writers of the encyclopedia, "identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... d_audience

(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke

There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition. The writer of the "we" sections claims to be a companion of St. Paul. The "we" begins at Acts, xvi, 10, and continues to xvi, 17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at xx, 5 (Philippi), and continues to xxi, 18 (Jerusalem). It reappears again at the departure for Rome, xxvii, 1 (Gr. text), and continues to the end of the book.

Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the rest of the Acts:
 from the natural way in which they fit in;
 from references to them in other parts; and
 from the identity of style.

The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative, but there is no change of language. The characteristic expressions of the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the "we" as in the other sections. There is no change of style perceptible. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive examination of every word and phrase in the first of the "we" sections (xvi, 10-17), and shows how frequent they are in the rest of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with the other Gospels. His manner of dealing with the first word (hos) will indicate his method: "This temporal hos is never found in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it occurs forty-eight times in St. Luke (Gospels and Acts), and that in all parts of the work." When he comes to the end of his study of this section he is able to write: "After this demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from a source, and so was not composed by the author of the whole work, take up a most difficult position. What may we suppose the author to have left unaltered in the source? Only the 'we'. For, in fact, nothing else remains. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have transformed everything else into his own language. As such a procedure is absolutely unimaginable, we are simply left to infer that the author is here himself speaking." He even thinks it improbable, on account of the uniformity of style, that the author was copying from a diary of his own, made at an earlier period. After this, Harnack proceeds to deal with the remaining "we" sections, with like results. But it is not alone in vocabulary, syntax and style, that this uniformity is manifest. In "The Acts of the Apostles", Harnack devotes many pages to a detailed consideration of the manner in which chronological data, and terms dealing with lands, nations, cities, and houses, are employed throughout the Acts, as well as the mode of dealing with persons and miracles, and he everywhere shows that the unity of authorship cannot be denied except by those who ignore the facts. This same conclusion is corroborated by the recurrence of medical language in all parts of the Acts and the Gospel.

That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is the unanimous voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language proves that the author was a physician. Westein, in his preface to the Gospel ("Novum Test. Græcum", Amsterdam, 1741, 643), states that there are clear indications of his medical profession throughout St. Luke's writings; and in the course of his commentary he points out several technical expressions common to the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen. These were brought together by the Bollandists ("Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). In the "Gentleman's Magazine" for June, 1841, a paper appeared on the medical language of St. Luke. To the instances given in that article, Plummer and Harnack add several others; but the great book on the subject is Hobart "The Medical Language of St. Luke" (Dublin, 1882). Hobart works right through the Gospel and Acts and points out numerous words and phrases identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides. A few are found in Aristotle, but he was a doctor's son. The words and phrases cited are either peculiar to the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than in other New Testament writings. The argument is cumulative, and does not give way with its weakest strands. When doubtful cases and expressions common to the Septuagint, are set aside, a large number remain that seem quite unassailable. Harnack (Luke the Physician! 13) says: "It is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more especially from the style, of this great work that the author was a physician by profession. Of course, in making such a statement one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics, and yet the arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing. . . . Those, however, who have studied it [Hobart's book] carefully, will, I think, find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic coloring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who was either a physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And, indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sections, but for the whole book." Harnack gives the subject special treatment in an appendix of twenty-two pages. Hawkins and Zahn come to the same conclusion. The latter observes (Einl., II, 427): "Hobart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof that the author of the Lucan work was a man practised in the scientific language of Greek medicine--in short, a Greek physician" (quoted by Harnack, op. cit.).

External Evidence

The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal character of the two books, is strengthened when taken in connection with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel; and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and Origen were great travellers, and all three were omniverous readers. They had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding centuries; but they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in question. This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the majority of classical works. But we have much earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria was probably born at Athens about A.D. 150. He travelled much and had for instructors in the Faith an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a Hebrew in Palestine. "And these men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father, came by God's providence even unto us, to deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were derived from their ancestors and the Apostles". (Strom., I, i, 11: cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", V, xi). He holds that St. Luke's Gospel was written before that of St. Mark, and he uses the four Gospels just as any modern Catholic writer. Tertullian was born at Carthage, lived some time in Rome, and then returned to Carthage. His quotations from the Gospels, when brought together by Rönsch, cover two hundred pages. He attacks Marcion for mutilating St. Luke's Gospel. and writes: " I say then that among them, and not only among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them in Christian fellowship, the Gospel of Luke, which we earnestly defend, has been maintained from its first publication" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).


The testimony of St. Irenæus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenæus, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.

The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David--that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott, "Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the "Dialogue", cv, we have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Irenæus, were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenæus, not many years after. This conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first century.

Irenæus, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position for forming a judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we are of knowing who were the authors of Scott's novels, Macaulay's essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc of "Tracts for the Times" etc. But the argument does not end here. Many of the heretics who flourished from the beginning of the second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's Gospel as authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable position long before these heretics broke away from the Church. The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about A.D. 150, makes use of our Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the phenomena of variant readings, to be found in Clement, Irenæus, Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a long period of previous copying. Finally, we may ask, if the author of the two books were not St. Luke, who was he?

Harnack (Luke the Physician, 2) holds that as the Gospel begins with a prologue addressed to an individual (Theophilus) it must, of necessity, have contained in its title the name of its author. How can we explain, if St. Luke were not the author, that the name of the real, and truly great, writer came to be completely buried in oblivion, to make room for the name of such a comparatively obscure disciple as St. Luke? Apart from his connection, as supposed author, with the Third Gospel and Acts, was no more prominent than Aristarchus and Epaphras; and he is mentioned only in three places in the whole of the New Testament. If a false name were substituted for the true author, some more prominent individual would have been selected.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[Easyrider]

John Authorship

We do have a church tradition cited by Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), who quotes Polycarp (a disciple of John):

John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia...

Authorship and canonicity (authenticity).

A. John the apostle has traditionally been accepted as the author of the fourth gospel since the early Church fathers.
1. Irenaeus, circa 200AD, a leading theologian of an authoritative canon of Scriptures, accepted John as the author of the Gospel of John.
2. Clement of Alexandria, 150-200AD, a Christian apologist and missionary to the Hellenistic (Greek) culture, produced many writings certifying John as the author of this gospel.
B. Authorship by John is further substantiated in the writings of the Muratorian Canon dated 180-200AD. (This is a Latin list of New Testament writings regarded as canonical and discovered by the Italian, Lodovico Musatori, and published in 1740.)
C. External sources of canonicity are attested by the Egerton Papyrus 2, dated before 150AD (C.H. Dodd, New Testament Studies, 1953 pp 1552) and also attested by Tatian in his writing, Diatesaron, circa 200AD. (This writing is a combination of the four gospels in one narrative.)
D. Internal attestation of both authorship and canonicity is seen in a classical formulation from B. F. Westcott and J. B. Lightfoot, (Biblical Essays, 1893, pp 1198) where it is demonstrated that the gospel was written:
1. By a Jew. Jn.1:19-28 references the Jewish expectation of the coming of Christ; Jn.4:9, the author knew the Jewish feelings towards the Samaritans; Jn.4:20, the Jewish attitude towards worship and acquaintance with the Jewish feasts; cp. Jn.18:39, noting the custom of the Passover for the Romans to release a Jewish prisoner.
2. By a Palestinian Jew. The author was acquainted with the geography, especially around Jerusalem, cp. Jn.9:7; 11:18; 18:1. Also, the cities of Galilee and the territory of Samaria, Jn.1:44; 2:1; 4:5,6,21.
3. By an eyewitness of events, Jn.1:14 "We beheld His glory"; 19:35 (author speaking in the third person) "And he who has seen has borne witness (event of the Cross)." The author knew the number and size of the pots at the wedding of Cana, Jn.2:6.
4. By the "beloved disciple" and close associate of the apostle Peter, Jn.21:7; cp. 13:23 (last supper, this rules out Peter). Since James was killed early in the history of the Church, and Thomas and Philip are mentioned so frequently in the third person (the author speaks of himself in the third person), John the son of Zebedee is the best remaining possibility.
5. The language and thinking of the author of the Gospel of John is parallel with the first epistle of John, cp. 1Jn.1:1ff.

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/intro-john.html

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR AUTHORSHIP

The early church history testifies that the apostle John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was the writer of the fourth Gospel. The external evidence for the fourth Gospel is impressive. The earliest known fragment of any part of the New Testament is a tiny papyrus fragment containing words from John 18, and is dated about AD 130. This ancient portion of the Gospel can be seen in John Rylands University Library in Manchester, England.
One principle witness of the early church who said that the fourth Gospel was written by John was Irenaeus. He wrote around AD 177. He not only spoke of the Gospel as being authoritative but said this about the author.
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast, himself published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living in Asia.5

Irenaeus attached importance to reliable Christian tradition. For example, Polycarp who is said to be a disciple of John the apostle is said to have quoted from the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus has this to say about his association with Polycarp.
I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which have taken place recently, for what we learn as boys grows up with our lives and becomes united to them. So I can describe for you the very place where the blessed Polycarp sat and discoursed, how he came in and went out, his manner of life and his bodily appearance, the discourses which he used to deliver to the people, and how he would tell of his converse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what things he had heard from them about the Lord, including his mighty works and his teaching.6

Clement of Alexandria AD 200 also speaks of John as the author. Frank Pack in is commentary on John says this about Clement:
Clement of Alexandria reported that after the death of Domitian the apostle returned from Patmos to Ephesus (Who is the rich man? 42; Eusebius, Church History III. xxiii. 5, 6). In his Hypotyposeis Clement preserved the tradition that this Gospel was written last, John, last of all, conscious that the outward (lit. bodily) facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged by his disciples, and, divinely approved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel (Eusebius, Church History VI. xiv. 7).7

Furthermore, the Muratorian Canon (circa AD 170-180), which contains a list of New Testament books compiled in Latin states:
John, one of the disciples, wrote the Fourth Gospel. When his fellow disciples and the bishops urged him to do so, he said, 'Join me in fasting for three days, and then let us relate to one another what shall be revealed to each.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles that John write down everything in his own name, and that they all should revise it.8

The Muratorian Canon goes on to state:
And therefore, although varying principles are taught in the several books of the gospel, yet it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since everything is set forth in them all by one directing Spirit, concerning the Lord's nativity, his passion, his resurrection, his converse with his disciples and his twofold advent - first in lowliness, without honour, which is past; secondly in royal power and glory, which is yet future. No wonder, then, that John so explicitly lays claim in his letters also these experiences one by one, saying of himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have touched this is what we have written.' Thus he claims not to be a spectator and hearer only but also a writer of all the Lord's wonders in due order.9

Moreover, another piece of evidence is a man by the name of Polycrates. Tasker in his book on the fourth Gospel records this about him:
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, which is usually dated about AD 190, states that 'John who reclined on the breast of the Lord' was a witness (martus) and a teacher'.10

http://www.waterburychurch.org/misc.asp ... paper=TRUE

Once again, you don't have these kinds of pedigrees for your Gnostic Gospels.

[Goat]

John Authorship

.

yes, you have a bunch of people claiming that John wrote it.


On the other hand

Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus.

[Easyrider]

John Authorship

.

yes, you have a bunch of people claiming that John wrote it.


On the other hand

Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus.

Cerinthus was a Jewish (pseudo) Christian from Egypt and the Gnostic arch-heretic that St. John opposed. In Ephesus, this man was a leader of a Gnostic cult which took the teachings of pagan Gnosticism and mixed them with Christian doctrine. These heresies today could be compared with many of the errors in the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Mormon cults. No writings of any kind have come down to us but many of the church fathers have written of Cerinthus' false teachings. John recoiled from the presence of Cerinthus.

Cerinthus admitted to one Supreme Being, taught that the world was produced by an aeon, a distinct and far inferior power (a lesser god) who made the earth. He does not even identify this Creator or Demiurges with the Jehovah of the Old Testament but similar to the Latter Day Saint heresies, with angels that have both made the world and given the law. The absurdity of the heresy is stretched to the point that these creator-angels were ignorant of the existence of the Supreme God. Cerinthus denied grace by holding to the law as sacred and believed that obedience to its precepts would lead to salvation. Cerinthus distinguished between Jesus and Christ and was one of the founders of Docetism, in that form spoke of Jesus as merely man, born of Joseph and Mary and did not become the "Christ" until thirty years later at the time of his baptism. At that time the nature of the "Christ" had descended at his baptism in the form of a dove, leaving again at the crucifixion. Jesus was merely a man, though eminent in holiness. Cerinthus therefore taught that Jesus had a dual nature, both Jesus as physical and the "Christ" as spiritual. When Jesus suffered and died, the "Christ" departed leaving only the human Jesus to die and was no physical resurrection from the dead, or, as some say Cerinthus taught, He will be raised from the dead at the Last Day when all men will rise with Him.

Tertullian wrote this of Cerinthus: "After him (Carpocrates) broke out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel. His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord," sets forth likewise the law as binding, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism."

John refused to remain under the same roof with the man who had denied the divinity of Jesus. Cerinthus taught in Asia minor. One time in Ephesus, John was entering into one of the great public baths (thermae) and when informed that Cerinthus was in the building, John turned away exclaiming "Let us fly, that the thermae (steam) fall not on our heads, since Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is therein." There is a preposterous legend that said that Cerinthus wrote the apocalypse.

Starting from this belief that evil is inherent in matter, this type of teaching disparaged man's bodily life, and as it affected Christian thought, denied the reality of the incarnation of the Lord. This heresy is combated by the declaration that "the Word became flesh." Cerinthus claimed for himself inner mystic experiences and exalted knowledge of God apart from the true apostles and prophets of Jesus. John insisted that Jesus was the actual, material, authentic manifestation of God in the flesh, and the genuine knowledge of God must result in moral transformation. These things may not seem to be important for us today but it is vital that we believe in the true nature of Jesus Christ for our salvation. We are to believe in order to be saved but it can not be a false Christ, it must be the One and Only. As for Cerinthus, Jesus Himself was not the preexistent Son of God that we are taught who truly took on our human nature in order to die for our sins and rise again for our justification.
[309, 289, 330, 338]

Latter-rain.com

Thus, Cerinthus teachings were contrary to what we find in John's Gospel. John presents a divine Jesus; Cerinthus a non-divine Jesus. John presents a divine Jesus as Creator; Cerinthus doesn't. Cerinthus denied the (Godly) incarnation; The Gospel of John says "The Word became flesh."

Unless your boy Cerinthus had a Holy change of heart and mind (which is nowhere recorded), then Cerinthus could not have written the Gospel of John. It simply doesn't match his beliefs and teachings. Comprendez??

[Goat]

John Authorship

We do have a church tradition cited by Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), who quotes Polycarp (a disciple of John):

John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia...

Authorship and canonicity (authenticity).

A. John the apostle has traditionally been accepted as the author of the fourth gospel since the early Church fathers.
1. Irenaeus, circa 200AD, a leading theologian of an authoritative canon of Scriptures, accepted John as the author of the Gospel of John.
2. Clement of Alexandria, 150-200AD, a Christian apologist and missionary to the Hellenistic (Greek) culture, produced many writings certifying John as the author of this gospel.
B. Authorship by John is further substantiated in the writings of the Muratorian Canon dated 180-200AD. (This is a Latin list of New Testament writings regarded as canonical and discovered by the Italian, Lodovico Musatori, and published in 1740.)
C. External sources of canonicity are attested by the Egerton Papyrus 2, dated before 150AD (C.H. Dodd, New Testament Studies, 1953 pp 1552) and also attested by Tatian in his writing, Diatesaron, circa 200AD. (This writing is a combination of the four gospels in one narrative.)
D. Internal attestation of both authorship and canonicity is seen in a classical formulation from B. F. Westcott and J. B. Lightfoot, (Biblical Essays, 1893, pp 1198) where it is demonstrated that the gospel was written:
1. By a Jew. Jn.1:19-28 references the Jewish expectation of the coming of Christ; Jn.4:9, the author knew the Jewish feelings towards the Samaritans; Jn.4:20, the Jewish attitude towards worship and acquaintance with the Jewish feasts; cp. Jn.18:39, noting the custom of the Passover for the Romans to release a Jewish prisoner.
2. By a Palestinian Jew. The author was acquainted with the geography, especially around Jerusalem, cp. Jn.9:7; 11:18; 18:1. Also, the cities of Galilee and the territory of Samaria, Jn.1:44; 2:1; 4:5,6,21.
3. By an eyewitness of events, Jn.1:14 "We beheld His glory"; 19:35 (author speaking in the third person) "And he who has seen has borne witness (event of the Cross)." The author knew the number and size of the pots at the wedding of Cana, Jn.2:6.
4. By the "beloved disciple" and close associate of the apostle Peter, Jn.21:7; cp. 13:23 (last supper, this rules out Peter). Since James was killed early in the history of the Church, and Thomas and Philip are mentioned so frequently in the third person (the author speaks of himself in the third person), John the son of Zebedee is the best remaining possibility.
5. The language and thinking of the author of the Gospel of John is parallel with the first epistle of John, cp. 1Jn.1:1ff.

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/intro-john.html

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR AUTHORSHIP

The early church history testifies that the apostle John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was the writer of the fourth Gospel. The external evidence for the fourth Gospel is impressive. The earliest known fragment of any part of the New Testament is a tiny papyrus fragment containing words from John 18, and is dated about AD 130. This ancient portion of the Gospel can be seen in John Rylands University Library in Manchester, England.
One principle witness of the early church who said that the fourth Gospel was written by John was Irenaeus. He wrote around AD 177. He not only spoke of the Gospel as being authoritative but said this about the author.
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast, himself published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living in Asia.5

Irenaeus attached importance to reliable Christian tradition. For example, Polycarp who is said to be a disciple of John the apostle is said to have quoted from the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus has this to say about his association with Polycarp.
I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which have taken place recently, for what we learn as boys grows up with our lives and becomes united to them. So I can describe for you the very place where the blessed Polycarp sat and discoursed, how he came in and went out, his manner of life and his bodily appearance, the discourses which he used to deliver to the people, and how he would tell of his converse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what things he had heard from them about the Lord, including his mighty works and his teaching.6

Clement of Alexandria AD 200 also speaks of John as the author. Frank Pack in is commentary on John says this about Clement:
Clement of Alexandria reported that after the death of Domitian the apostle returned from Patmos to Ephesus (Who is the rich man? 42; Eusebius, Church History III. xxiii. 5, 6). In his Hypotyposeis Clement preserved the tradition that this Gospel was written last, John, last of all, conscious that the outward (lit. bodily) facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged by his disciples, and, divinely approved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel (Eusebius, Church History VI. xiv. 7).7

Furthermore, the Muratorian Canon (circa AD 170-180), which contains a list of New Testament books compiled in Latin states:
John, one of the disciples, wrote the Fourth Gospel. When his fellow disciples and the bishops urged him to do so, he said, 'Join me in fasting for three days, and then let us relate to one another what shall be revealed to each.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles that John write down everything in his own name, and that they all should revise it.8

The Muratorian Canon goes on to state:
And therefore, although varying principles are taught in the several books of the gospel, yet it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since everything is set forth in them all by one directing Spirit, concerning the Lord's nativity, his passion, his resurrection, his converse with his disciples and his twofold advent - first in lowliness, without honour, which is past; secondly in royal power and glory, which is yet future. No wonder, then, that John so explicitly lays claim in his letters also these experiences one by one, saying of himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have touched this is what we have written.' Thus he claims not to be a spectator and hearer only but also a writer of all the Lord's wonders in due order.9

Moreover, another piece of evidence is a man by the name of Polycrates. Tasker in his book on the fourth Gospel records this about him:
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, which is usually dated about AD 190, states that 'John who reclined on the breast of the Lord' was a witness (martus) and a teacher'.10

http://www.waterburychurch.org/misc.asp ... paper=TRUE

Once again, you don't have these kinds of pedigrees for your Gnostic Gospels.

Nope.. but that of course, is ignoring all the early disagreements iwth it.

No matter how often you repeat things, you can not stop the fact that there were people who believed the Gospel of John was not written by John,and from the very earliest years too.

You can not stop the fact that with just a few minor changes that are believed to be redactions anyway, the Gospel of John turns out to have close similarities to Gnostic tradition.

You can not stop the fact many people doubt the 'Gospel of John' was written by any of the 4 potential Johns that it traditionally is assocaited with.

You can deny it.. but you can not stop the disagreement, even among the early church fathers about it.

[Confused]

Easyrider: to start with let me address the simplest of your post:

One more thing: The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" says you have to become a man before you can be saved. Are you buying into that one too?

How can you be saved if you aren't man. If your aren't man then you may not be inherently sinful, such as man is. So while you read that as apples, I read it as oranges and say that yea, one must become man to be saved, otherwise one doesn't exist.

Easyrider wrote:
Once again, you don't have these kinds of pedigrees for your Gnostic Gospels.

You just don't have the wealth of confirmations for your "Gnostic" Gospels that you do for the Biblical Gospels.

Perhaps you missed the part about Irenaeus and his companions considered "Heresy Hunters". One cannot establish anything based on the fact that they attempted to systematically destroy anything that didn't favor what was chosen to be included in the bible.

Easyrider:

What bias are you talking about? Can't people who knew Jesus and the events of his life, death, and resurrection record those facts without being superficially labeled as biased?

In regards to what bias, I will refer to what I posted above. In regards to the remaining:
Sure, people can and should be able to record the events of Jesus. I don't deny that right. People obviously can and did. But the problem I have with it and the reason I used the word "biased" is because the church was the one who decided what was true about Christ and what wasnt'. They included only 2 Gospels that were "written by disciples" and 2 that were dictated by companions of 2 of the disciples that happen to conveniently show favorably about Christ. What of His other 8 disciples? Were they illiterate or unable to record their testimony for some odd reason? Are you saying that Judas, Thomas, and Mary didn't know Jesus?

And once again, you can want Matthew to be the author of Matthew and Luke to be the author of Luke, but you can no more prove it beyond a reasonable doubt than any of the top scholars you mentioned. Consider: Mark- the assumed first recorded Gospel was written ~70 AD. That would make him what? About 90? Since the Gospel never actually gives his age, I am using the age of 20, but even if I used the age of 10, he would have been 80 years old. Now, for the elite to live past 60 during that time period was considered old. Mark was but a peasant. Yet he could live until at least the age of 80? Does that not strike you as a bit odd?

Now Eusebius: Mark wrote what Peter said to write? Or Mark wrote what he remembered Peter said? Irenaeus: Not sure I would want to rely on anything he wrote, at best he was a sadist and mass murder, at worst I don't want to even imagine. Clement of Alexandria: Peter never hndered nor promoted what Mark supposedly wrote, not a compelling argument. The remaining only repeat what was earlier said.

Now Luke: Why write two separate books? One the Gospel of Luke and one the Book of Acts? Both are addressed to the same person. Why not just keep them together? Linguistics etc... all agree they were written by the same person. I find this hard to swallow, but even if I did, they know this person was Luke how?

[Confused]

Wrong thread. OOPPSS

[Easyrider]

Easyrider: to start with let me address the simplest of your post:

One more thing: The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" says you have to become a man before you can be saved. Are you buying into that one too?

How can you be saved if you aren't man. If your aren't man then you may not be inherently sinful, such as man is. So while you read that as apples, I read it as oranges and say that yea, one must become man to be saved, otherwise one doesn't exist.

It isn't about being "mankind," but gender. Here's what pseudo Thomas wrote:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That's not what Jesus taught.

Sure, people can and should be able to record the events of Jesus. I don't deny that right. People obviously can and did. But the problem I have with it and the reason I used the word "biased" is because the church was the one who decided what was true about Christ and what wasnt'.

They weren't the church when they recognized and wrote about the truth. They were mere disciples / Apostles. They were (apart from Jesus) the later founders of the church.

They included only 2 Gospels that were "written by disciples" and 2 that were dictated by companions of 2 of the disciples that happen to conveniently show favorably about Christ. What of His other 8 disciples? Were they illiterate or unable to record their testimony for some odd reason?

Who knows? Would you believe then? OR still question?

Consider: Mark- the assumed first recorded Gospel was written ~70 AD. That would make him what? About 90? Since the Gospel never actually gives his age, I am using the age of 20, but even if I used the age of 10, he would have been 80 years old. Now, for the elite to live past 60 during that time period was considered old. Mark was but a peasant. Yet he could live until at least the age of 80? Does that not strike you as a bit odd?

Here's some dating by scholars:

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 66 or 67
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 60 to 70
Robert A. Guelich, Ph.D. AD 67 to 70
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 40 to 65, with the earlier date favored.
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 70
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 64
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 70
William L. Lane, Th.D. AD 60 to 70
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. AD 65 to 75
M.S. Mills, Ph.D. AD 68
N. Perrin, Ph.D. after AD 64/65
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Before AD 62 Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 60 to 70
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 70 AD
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 45
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70

If Mark was born around 5 AD he would only have been 40 according to some scholars. Or 50-60 to others. Certainly not an unreasonable age.

Now Luke: Why write two separate books? One the Gospel of Luke and one the Book of Acts? Both are addressed to the same person. Why not just keep them together?

I don't know. He learned more later on and though it was noteworthy. Why is that a problem?