Is John the Author of His Gospel?

A common notion floating around in Pop Culture is that "modern scholarship" has somehow proven the Gospel of John is more or less unhistorical fantasy written by a pseudonymous author.

Here are the facts: the tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the gospel is rooted in the testimony of the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

St. Irenaeus tells us (circa 180 A.D.) that the fourth gospel was published by the Apostle John, the teacher of his own mentor Polycarp. Numerous other witnesses in the second and third centuries corroborate this basic witness. In addition, various elements within the gospel strongly suggest John as the author. Most obviously, there is the attestation of the witnesses penning the gospel that it is the testimony of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:24)—a disciple to whom no one but John corresponds. The source of the gospel is, quite clearly, a Jew familiar with the conditions of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Christ. He speaks Aramaic and Greek. He knows Jerusalem as it looked before Rome reduced it to rubble in 70 AD. And he gives countless details which, if they are not the testimony of a first-hand eyewitness who was present at the Last Supper, are an absolutely isolated occurrence of novelistic realism nineteen centuries ahead of its time. That he was part of Christ's "inner circle" of Peter, James and John (cf. Galatians 2:9) is even more likely given that he was the disciple at the Last Supper who laid his head on Christ's breast. He can't be Peter, who is distinguished from him in the text, and he can't be James (who died in the early 40s). So it all points to John.

Additionally, the patristic tradition that the gospel was composed in Ephesus also points to John. First, this is the city associated with the Assumption of the Virgin who was commended into his care. Second, the gospel repeatedly answers a sect devoted to John the Baptist with the reply that John “was not the Light” but had only come to “bear witness to the Light” (John 1:8). We know from Acts 18:24 and 19:1-7 that there was such a sect centered in Ephesus. Finally, the sophistication of the gospel fits the fact that the New Testament epistle with the most sophisticated exposition of theology is the epistle to the Ephesians.

Conclusion: the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

Some critics, eager to look for cracks in this evidence, will note that the Greek of John’s gospel and epistles is of a different quality than the Greek of John’s Revelation and say, along with Eusebius, that Irenaeus might have had his Johns mixed up among multiple individuals. Others, grasping at straws, may claim that Mark 10:38-39…

…implies that both James and John suffered a martyr's death, contradicting John 21:22-23.

But these arguments are weak as well. To be sure, there is a strain of thought dating back to Eusebius that John the apostle and John the “elder” may be two different people. But so what? We know from internal evidence (John 21:24), that the gospel has more than one hand involved in its composition. Given the common use of an amanuensis (a secretary who took dictation) in the New Testament, that shouldn't surprise us. The editors of John make it abundantly clear that they have some sort of hand in the composition of the gospel, but that the gospel is nonetheless rooted in the testimony of the “beloved disciple” whom they know intimately.

This means the discrepancy in writing styles between the Gospel and the Revelation could be due to any number of factors. It may be that John wrote his gospel with the help of another person named John (then, as now, a common name). It may be that he had no amanuensis when he wrote his Revelation (which would explain the different styles and the difference in competence in Greek). None of this disproves the strong evidence that John bar-Zebedee is the source of the testimony in the gospel.

Likewise the attempt to pit Mark 10:38-39 against the testimony of John 21 is what happens when you let all your biblical interpretation be done by people who are on a single-minded mission to show that everything in the Bible is false, untrustworthy, etc. Such determined misreaders wind up forgetting that it's a human book using human language in their zeal to prove it's not God's book. So the critic sets himself the absurd task of insisting that it couldn't be possible Jesus is simply saying that James and John are going to endure suffering for His sake, or that the murder of James would be a bitter cup for his brother John to drink. No, they have to insist that Mark thinks John was martyred, even though the whole tradition of the Church preserves no such tradition at all. One hears the sound of an ax on the grinding wheel of an agenda, not of a sensible reading of a text.

Yet another criticism of Johannine authorship turns the very sophistication of the gospel against it. Some declare that John bar-Zebedee, a mere fisherman, could not have been an educated Greek-speaking theological genius and therefore could not have written such a theologically sophisticated work.

Here’s the problem: The assumption that a Jewish fisherman living two thousand years ago couldn't be multi-lingual, or educated, or a genius or a contemplative—or all four—is a very fine illustration of what the great Christian writer C.S. Lewis used to refer to as “chronological snobbery”. This is, roughly speaking, the notion that we are, by virtue of our blenders and hi-def TVs, 2000 years smarter than people who lived in Jesus' time and that we are therefore comfortably ensconced on the final and permanent platform from which to look down on all human history. It is to forget something a reader of mine puckishly pointed out:

In other words, in the zeal to argue John was "just" a fisherman, the critic forgets that Paul was "just" a tentmaker, yet still had plenty of time to get educated. He forgets that native Aramaic-speaking John lived in "Galilee of the Gentiles" and that the normal lingua franca of a tradesman at this crossroads of various civilizations was Koine Greek.

But beyond his language skills, the matter of John's theological prowess is much more acute—and surprising to moderns who think education begins and ends with plump suburbanites. It should be carefully marked that John's gospel makes a rather curious note—and not one anybody would invent: it says that John was "known to the high priest" (John 18:16). That would be Caiaphas, the guy John’s gospel holds accountable for engineering Jesus’ death. John—the supposedly ignorant and uneducated fisherman—was known to the most important theological and political brain in Judea c. 33 AD. And this strongly suggests that John may have spent more time in Jerusalem and gotten more of an education than we think.

The fact is, most of our pop culture picture of John comes from movies full of "humble fishermen" in ragged clothes. But it is quite possible to construct a picture of the fisherman John from the New Testament which leaves room for a man as well-educated as the tentmaker Paul. The fact that the Jerusalem elite thought the apostles uneducated means only that the Jerusalem elite were snobs, which we knew. It's entirely possible that John had studied with rabbis. It's possible he was familiar with the work of his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, (who has his own notions about the Logos and its relationship with the word of God). It's possible that John, after his apostleship began (or even before), was interested in the philosophy of the pagans. He would have known plenty of them in Galilee of the Gentiles. Indeed, that may have been exactly what drew him to preach the gospel in cosmopolitan Ephesus. It's possible that he was taught by rabbis in Jerusalem who were interested in the conversation between the Scriptures and the pagan philosophies. All sorts of things are possible. But certainly nothing merits the claim that there is "absolutely no scholarly evidence" that the gospel is substantially the eyewitness testimony of John the apostle.

In sum, if an ancient Jewish tentmaker could be a theologically-well-educated polyglot, so could an ancient Jewish fisherman. All the evidence we possess suggests that this is exactly what John was. At most, it suggests that John's written testimony was assisted by the work of a more polished writer, who himself insists that John is the source of what he's writing. Given that there is not a trace of doubt about this in the early Church, a normal literary historian would take this as very strong evidence that this is John's testimony. Only an agenda-driven conspiracy theorist finds this too difficult to buy.

When all this is said, one last stratagem is sometimes deployed by the critic of Johannine authorship. It goes something like this: Why accept the so-called “internal evidence” of the gospel of John when you don’t accept the Book of Mormon or the Quran?

That argument would have some bearing on the discussion—if we were talking about a sola scriptura claim for the divine inspiration of John's gospel. But in fact we are talking about textual analysis and historic evidence, not concerning the inspiration of a document, but concerning the human authorship of that document. It takes faith to believe that God revealed the New Testament, the Quran or the book of Mormon. But it takes only reason and evidence to believe Mohammed wrote the Quran, Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon—or that John is the author his gospel. Such evidences exist both internal to the documents in question, as well as in testimony from external witnesses. It's how we know Julius Caesar wrote his Gallic Wars and it's how we know John wrote his gospel.

Long ago, sometime between Jesus (whoever he really was) and the rise of the "organized Church", some unknown editors just cooked up a story about Jesus, attributed it to, say, John, and sent it off to random communities of Stupid People who were 2000 years dumber than us. These Stupid People naturally believed without question both that the book was from John and that John was telling the truth, so they started a Church based on this book. They never bothered to check up on any of this, because they were 2000 years more gullible than we Brights. Nor did anybody from the community where John lived ever say, "Hey! John didn't write that!" Nor did John himself ever protest that he'd said nothing of the kind. Fortunately, Brights are 2000 years smarter and these elementary questions occur to them.

In fact, however, the community, not the book, comes first. The book is the testimony, not merely of one man, but of the whole Church. The book was believed because the man was believed. And the man was believed, in part, because he was not one man (like Mohammed or Joseph Smith) claiming a vision and promising earthly pleasures and power, but because he is one of 500 people who bear witness by a life of martyrdom to public events that took place within the living memory of all Israel (1 Corinthians 15:6). That's the meaning of the endorsement at the end of the gospel from the Johannine community ("It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24)). It doesn't mean "Dear Gullible Stranger: Read this, believe it, and don't question whether it really came from John. Signed, a Pack of Anonymous Con Men You Can Trust". It means "You guys in the neighboring diocese down the road know John and what he has suffered for the gospel and you know us. We will vouch for the accuracy of this document."

That's why John's gospel propagated so quickly and was so quickly accepted. It's also why other gospels that loudly claimed to be from apostles did not propagate quickly and were not accepted, because ancients weren't stupid enough to accept apostolic authorship just because the document claimed it.

It's also why gospels written by figures of no importance in the rest of the New Testament, such as Mark and Luke, were accepted and attributed to them, even though the documents themselves make no claim to authored by these men. Think about it: If you are going to cook up a gospel, why attribute it to such second stringers?

Answer: the gospels weren't cooked up. They are the works of the people to whom they are attributed. The community remembers who wrote them even when the documents themselves do not say, "By Mark", "By Luke", or "By John". That's the scholarly evidence.

This is an endless argument. It all boils down to faith. Just as the Protestants cannot be persuaded by arguments to return to the Church, so can no one come to believe because Mark Shea says the Gospel of John is really the Gospel of John.

These are futile arguments that give academicians something to publish without really saying anything new. This is no different than overpaid astronomers who get to play with multimillion dollar telescopes and postulate time-space warps.

None of this really does anything for the world. It doesn't cure hunger; it doesn't bring peace; it doesn't give mercy and compassion; it doesn't justify; it doesn't cure...In other words, its not God's work, it's not using our talents for the betterment of life.

The oldest fragment copy of a copy of a copy of the Gospels happen to be a few pages of John 1, from about 105 AD. It is unsigned. The caption Κατα Ιωαννην (According to John) was added in copies found in the latter half of the second century.

The Gospel of John also differs radically from the Synoptic Gospels, reflecting the belief of Christianity at the end of the first century, emphasizing Christ's divinity as opposed to His humanity of the earlier three Gospels.

His account of the timing of Christ's death and resurrection, as well as his theology, reflects a different era and a clear post-Jamnia state of Christianity as a separate religion. None of this could have been a historical account of early Christianity.

But, in the final analysis, it really makes no difference if any of the books of the Bible were really written by the people we believe they were written by. Isaiah, for instance, reflects three different authors and three different eras, making it impossible to be the the product of one single author.

The Church has consistently and from as early as we can tell followed the writings we now attribute to the New Testament. Of the four Gospels only two were written by alleged Apostolic eyewitnesses, Matthew and John. Mark, whose work is heavily copied by both Matthew and Luke, was not an eyewitness (and neither was Luke). And the Gospels of Matthew and John are like night and day.

But the Church found these to be inspired and reflecting the faith Christ delivered to his followers. It is the message of the Gospels that serves as the foundation of the Church and not the authors' names.

Early Church fathers never gave any account of authorship. The earliest Church (in the East) even tried to used an alamgamted Gospel, a conflation of all four into one. Some, such as St. Justin Martyr, speak only of "apostolic memoirs." (c 150 AD). It is not until Irenaeus at the vend of the 2nd centiry that we begin to see references made to Apostolic authorship.

Mark Shea's appeal to Saints Polycarp and Ignatius is also not a bulletproof "proof." We really don't know much about Polycarp and under which John was he instructed. Many of Ignatius' writings later on turned out to be latter-day forgeries.

The fact is that there is no solid proof that anything in the bible is true, or that the authors are those we believe they are. The Bible is a book that requires pre-existant faith in order to be profitable. No different than any other worldly writing considered sacred.

Let us not forget that even the heretics use the Bible to "prove" their heresies!

There is absolutely no proof, only speculation, on just about any of this

No, the burden of proof is on the party making extraordinary claims, which would be the Bible in this case. In absence of proof, doubt is justified. Just because I believe there are pink unicorns on Jupiter doesn't mean it's true.

Moreover, it would take nothing short of extraordinary evidence to prove any of that. You claim authority of the Bible entirely based on your personal faith; nothing more substantial. The Muslims do the same with their Koran. And the Jews reject the New Testament entirely based on their convictions. There is nothing self-evident in any of these books unless you, as a precondition, believe they are true.

[U]nless you can come up with actual contradictory evidence from archaeology or some alternate text is discovered that completely contradicts, alters, or discounts it.

Try Exodus. It never happened. It's a myth, a legend.

There are arguments that are just as compelling, more so, that Isaiah is indeed the product of one author just as it claims

Don't hold back.

The truth is, if you pick at the Bible as piecemeal as possible and with enough skepticism, you will see what you want to see.

The truth is that if you approach the Bible already convinced that everything in it is true and inerrant, chance are you will see exactly what you want to see.

(I'm reminded of the old Jewish lady Fr. Benedict Groeschel always quotes about the skeptics, "Oh, really? What, you were th-e-e-e-re?"

Have you?

Nothing in archaelogy or history has proven a single thing in the Bible to be false

And what was proven to be true that really matters? Biblical archeology is an oxymoron. David's empire wasn't really an empire but a couple of villages. Exodus never happened. Hundreds of thousands of Hebrews allegedly lived in Egypt 430 years and left no archeological remains there. A million Israelites mostly sat in the Sinai for 40 years and left no trace of their presence! But the Egyptians the Bible doesn't mention left plenty of evidence of their presence in Sinai in the 13th century BC! Canaan was an Egyptian province on the New Kingdom. Get real.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Absence of evidence is not a proof of extraordinary biblical claims either. In absence of evidence, doubt is justified.

I have heard arguments from Jewish Rabbis that are as deep and as sound as anything from conservative Christian scholars, too, about the origin and authority of the Old Testament. The accuracy of tradition and the transmission of that tradition and the scriptures, in Judaism, is mind-boggling and without parallel in any civilization in antiquity.

Then their rejection of Christianity must be justified too, since they know so much more than we do. They list seven conditions a man must fulfill in order to be considered a messiah, one of them is being Jewish. According to the rabbis, Jesus fulfills one, namely being Jewish. Are you Christian?

I don't buy 99% of the arguments of "textual criticism" because it almost always comes down to limited knowledge (later proven wrong, as has happened time and again down through the last couple centuries when it comes to textual criticism, or "higher criticism", by the so-called "experts"), incomplete knowledge, or simply "because we know the supernatural isn't possible, prophecy can't be real" (the real argument against Daniel's authorship and dating, for instance, even though the argument is absurd on its face for reasons too detailed to go into here).

So, you are the authority on textual criticism and everyone else isn't? Is this all about your opinions? Why don't you provide credible evidence of these fancy terms such as "almost allays," or "the so-called 'experts'" or "incomplete knowledge" (do you have complete knowledge?)

Isaiah 53 was believed to be the work of later Christian scribes - interlopers - until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered...Oops! There was Isaiah 53, exactly as the modern Bible has it. DOH!

Which Isa 57? Doh! The first version is the Eastern Orthodox version. The second one is the Roman Catholic. Protestant. Hebrew version.

Isaiah 57 Septuagint (LXX)

1 O Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? ²We brought a report as of a child before Him; He is as a root in a thirsty land; He has no form, nor comeliness; and we saw Him, but He had no form nor beauty. ³But His appearance was without honor, and inferior to that of the sons of men; He was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for His face has turned from us; He was dishonored, and not esteemed.

4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us; yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. ⁵But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His stripes we are healed. ⁶All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has wandered in his way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins. ⁷And He, because of His affliction, opened not His mouth; He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth. ⁸In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken away from the earth; because of the iniquities of My people He was led to death. ⁹And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His death; for He practiced no iniquity, nor craft with His mouth.

10 The Lord also is pleased to purge Him from His stroke. If you give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed; ¹¹the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and He shall bear their sins. ¹²Therefore He shall inherit many, and He shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because His soul was delivered to death; and He was numbered among the transgressors; and He bore the sins of many, and was delivered up because of their transgressions

Isaiah 57 New American Bible (NAB), and Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)

     1The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart;
         And devout men are taken away, while no one understands
         For the righteous man is taken away from evil,
    2He enters into peace;
         They rest in their beds,
         Each one who walked in his upright way.
    3"But come here, you sons of a sorceress,
         Offspring of an adulterer and a prostitute.
    4"Against whom do you jest?
         Against whom do you open wide your mouth
         And stick out your tongue?
         Are you not children of rebellion,
         Offspring of deceit,
    5Who inflame yourselves among the oaks,
         Under every luxuriant tree,
         Who slaughter the children in the ravines,
         Under the clefts of the crags?
    6"Among the smooth stones of the ravine
         Is your portion, they are your lot;
         Even to them you have poured out a drink offering,
         You have made a grain offering
         Shall I relent concerning these things?
    7"Upon a high and lofty mountain
         You have made your bed.
         You also went up there to offer sacrifice.
    8"Behind the door and the doorpost
         You have set up your sign;
         Indeed, far removed from Me, you have uncovered yourself,
         And have gone up and made your bed wide.
         And you have made an agreement for yourself with them,
         You have loved their bed,
         You have looked on their manhood.
    9"You have journeyed to the king with oil
         And increased your perfumes;
         You have sent your envoys a great distance
         And made them go down to Sheol.
    10"You were tired out by the length of your road,
         Yet you did not say, 'It is hopeless.'
         You found renewed strength,
         Therefore you did not faint.
    11"Of whom were you worried and fearful
         When you lied, and did not remember Me
         Nor give Me a thought?
         Was I not silent even for a long time
         So you do not fear Me?
    12"I will declare your righteousness and your deeds,
         But they will not profit you.
    13"When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you
         But the wind will carry all of them up,
         And a breath will take them away
         But he who takes refuge in Me will inherit the land
         And will possess My holy mountain."
    14And it will be said,
         "Build up, build up, prepare the way,
         Remove every obstacle out of the way of My people."
    15For thus says the high and exalted One
         Who lives forever, whose name is Holy,
         "I dwell on a high and holy place,
         And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit
         In order to revive the spirit of the lowly
         And to revive the heart of the contrite.
    16"For I will not contend forever,
         Nor will I always be angry;
         For the spirit would grow faint before Me,
         And the breath of those whom I have made.
    17"Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
         I hid My face and was angry,
         And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.
    18"I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
         I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,
    19Creating the praise of the lips
         Peace, peace to him who is far and to him who is near,"
         Says the LORD, "and I will heal him."
    20But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
         For it cannot be quiet,
         And its waters toss up refuse and mud.
    21"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Now, even to an untrained eye, the version of Isaiah 57 that would be suspect of being Christian is the last paragraph of the LXX version, and that's not the Isaiah found either in the Catholic, Protestant or Hebrew Bible! It is found only in Orthodox Bibles.

We do know that a number of Dead Sea Scrolls agree with LXX, but we also know that DSS were written from the 3rd century BC and into the 1st century AD (i.e. when Christians were already around). So, the fact that something is discovered in the DSS doesn't mean is is not of Christian or Christianin-fluenced writings.

The difference in these versions of Isaiah 57 is stunning. They are like night and day. Yet the Apostles refer to the Septuagint in over 93% of their Old Testament quotes. I guess you can thank St. Jerome for beleiving Christ-hating rabbis and convincing the Catholic Church to drop the Septuagint. So, the issue of Isaiah 57 is moot from your side of the great divide.

I'm utterly confused as to your point and your perspective. On the one hand you seem to be arguing an atheist viewpoint as to the reliability of scripture (at least Old Testament history, anyway). On the other hand you seem to be arguing for the Orthodox Church as the "true" Christian faith. Which is it?

As to the "various" versions of Isaiah 53 (why you refer to it as Isaiah 57, I can only guess - the Orthodox version refers to it as 57, I would assume?), I can't argue for this because I have no idea what the textual basis for it is, or if what you're posting is accurate. I can only go by what I know, and what I've read. So far as I know, scholars generally agree that Isaiah 53 in the version found at Qumran matches the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (which most modern Bible translations are based on). I find it a dubious claim the LXX doesn't match up (and yes, I know that the LXX was what Paul and most of the other Jews read, and based their scripture references on) and would need a lot more evidence, from scholars I know, recognize and respect, than just your hearsay claim. Who did the translation? What LXX sources did they use? Etc.

"There is nothing self-evident in any of these books unless you, as a precondition, believe they are true."

You mean nothing "self-evident", like, say the fulfillment of prophecies spelled out in the O.T.? Yes, I point to Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and each of the others (which you can handily find in any Study Bible or on-line). I consider each of the prophecies (generally recognized as prophecies of the Messiah even by the Jews of old) to be "self-evident" for not only belief that Jesus was who he said he was, but also for the validity of the Bible. I'm sure you're aware of the statistical arguments of the likelihood that any one man could fulfill each of the prophecies so exactly. (And please spare me the Mark Twain quote about statistics: heard it, know it, it doesn't impress me.)

Your assertion that the "Exodus never happened" is laughable. Says who? You? Liberal scholars? Based on what, because they say so? I can give you an easy example of evidence for it - just one, and it's fun, and I point to it simply because it's fresh in my mind - the History Channel (ever an anti-Biblical media source) had a series in which they went into a cave in Sinai to find one of the earliest forms of written language, and it was made by Hebrews, and it was an appeal to God - El. Amusing, fun.

There are a number of excellent books, written by a number of excellent scholars (and their conservative view is just as valid as any liberal's view because they're both working with the same sources and "evidence") that present excellent cases for the reliability of the Old Testament (yes, based on *finds*, based on "real evidence").

Try "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", by Kitchen. 20 bucks on Amazon. It's pretty standard fair for first or second year seminary or religion programs at divinity schools. Example after example after example. Try "A Biblical History of Israel", or the other standard, "A History of Israel" by Bright. Even Mr. Titanic (of the infamous "Jesus Tomb" fame), James Cameron, did a recent television special on the Exodus that claimed it really happened and provided numerous examples of historical evidence for it, even as they tried to show that all of the "plagues" were simply from a volcanic event. Annoying example, I know, but they still did a pretty good job of making the basic case for the Exodus.

As to the kingdom of David being "a couple of villages", that is simply a laughable claim. Please read the books I pointed you to, above. Real scholars, real archeologists, well respected even by liberal peers; scholars and archeologists at top universities, with "real" degrees that aren't out of a Crackerjack box. The Davidic kingdom was not the Persian Empire, it also wasn't "a couple of villages". That statement just makes you look silly.

And yeah, in the end, it all comes down to faith - belief in God, belief in the book, belief in Christ, belief in the Resurrection. It's also a statement of faith that you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.