• Current • Older • Profile •
• Beliefs • Rings • Misc • Links •
• Notes • G-book • Awards • Design • Host •

Issues Surrounding the Gospel of John
2004-02-25 - 2:09 a.m.

This is an old essay from school. I'm just pointing this out because it was written to a question so if it looks a bit funny, thats why. I may revise it at some time.

The Author

The view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, is the most traditional of the theories concerning the Evangelist. The main evidence this view relies upon is that of St. Irenaeus. Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who listened to the author of the Gospel. Irenaeus says that “John, a disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. In this Clement of Alexandria, writing twenty years after Irenaeus, agreed. This view is borne out by Bishop Theophilus of Antioch who cited the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John the Apostle, and by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis who included in an exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel and for which he had been a scribe. The Gnostic heretic Marcion, who revised much of the New Testament, in the Prologue said that John was an apostle of Jesus. Also, the evangelist when speaking of John the Baptist, does not often refer to him as ‘the Baptist’ as the Synoptics, who use this to distinguish him from the apostle John. It seems logical that, if it was indeed John the Apostle writing the Gospel, he would not need to distinguish the Baptist from himself, as presumably people knew that it was he writing it.

However, there are many problems with this theory. C. K. Barrett writes that “although Irenaeus himself sincerely believed that the apostle John had written the fourth gospel, he did not make Polycarp say so.” Also, Polycarp seems to have used the Epistles of John, but does not mention the Gospel itself which casts doubt upon Irenaeus’ assertion. There is also a strong tradition that John the Apostle shared the martyrdom of his brother James and that the prophecy of Mark 10:39 of their deaths would not have been written had it not already taken place. There is also the matter that, as John was an adult when called by Jesus, and so by the probable date of the composition of the Gospel, circa 90AD, he would have been extremely old.

Also, some of the scholars whom we should have expected to refer to the gospel do not, such as St. Ignatius and Justin. They had access to apostolic material, although it is possible that the gospel had not reached them, had not been written or that they simply had not read it. However, an apostolic book, especially if he, as Irenaeus seems to think may have been the Beloved Disciple himself, could be expected to be known to the many in the early church.

The gospel itself, unusually if it was an apostolic work, was regarded with hostility by the church. It was first used by Gnostic heretics and because of this connection was thought to be heretical and there were those who did not wish it to be accepted into the canon. This fact begs the question that if someone was campaigning for the inclusion of the gospel and its acceptance by mainstream Christianity, what could be more advantageous to the cause than apostolic, eyewitness verification for the gospel? Barrett writes that “the confident testimony of Irenaeus is not valid for the period before him. The history of the Fourth Gospel in the second century is extremely difficult to read, and is certainly no plain tale of unquestioned reverence unhesitatingly accorded to an apostolic book.”

There are problems with John the Apostle himself. He was a fisherman and not very well educated, yet John’s Gospel is a work of complex theology and many themes, is it really probable that such a man as John the Apostle would have been capable of producing such a work?

Another identity which people use for the evangelist is often the Beloved Disciple mentioned in the Gospel, and whom Irenaeus identified with the Apostle and with the Evangelist. As C.K. Barrett writes, “he was either an unidentified, and unidentifiable, figure, or John the son of Zebedee, represented by an author with much more admiration for his hero than sound historical fact.” Many people have noticed that for the author of the Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple would mean that he was very arrogant to describe himself as “the one whom Jesus loved” (20:2) and to imply that he was better than the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, by reaching the tomb first, and recognising Jesus and believing in him sooner than anyone else. However, it could be that there was a redactor who placed these references in the text after the death of the Beloved Disciple.

However, the Beloved Disciple was Jewish and obviously lived during the first century yet the evangelist shows some ignorance of Palestinian customs and affairs of the time. For example, in 18:13 he seems to have believed that the high priest only ruled for one year, and the Sea of Tiberius mentioned was not called such until the second century. However, Barrett has a theory, that “it was drawn up, edited and published by persons who had no personal historical contact with Jesus, and perhaps no contact with Palestine; certainly not by an apostle.”

There are several other suggestions for the author of the Fourth Gospel, John the Elder, John Mark or Lazarus. John the Elder is the man identified as the author of the Second and Third Epistles. He is mentioned by Papias as being still alive at 100AD and archaeological evidence seems to show him living at Ephesus. If the First Epistle was written by him, as the second and third were, then it is likely that he was also the author of the Gospel of St. John. Within the Gospel itself some have thought that Lazarus could have been the author. J.N. Sanders thinks that the evangelist used Lazarus as his eyewitness to the events in the Gospel. People think that Lazarus could have been the Beloved Disciple, who in 21:24 “this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things” because the Beloved Disciple was called “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and in the chapter devoted to Lazarus (which in itself is unusual) he is described as “he whom you love”. It is not inconceivable that Lazarus, together with Martha and Mary, became Jesus’ disciples, indeed, Martha is given teaching and confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” The fact that the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus is not mentioned by any of the other gospels is perhaps significant as such an event might be supposed to be important to all of them. However, if the author of the Gospel was indeed Lazarus, then he would naturally wish to include in it an account of how he knew Jesus in order to verify the Gospel, as Mark is supposed to have done by including the man without a garment in his gospel. J. N. Sanders believes that the author of the Gospel was the John Mark mentioned in Acts and thought by most to have written the Gospel of Mark. His arguments are that John Mark was called John, that he lived in Jerusalem, was from a priestly family and could therefore be the disciple known to the high priest in Jn 18:15. The apostles met at his mother’s house in Acts 12:12 and was the upper room of the Passover in the Synoptic account and could therefore be the location of the Farewell Discourses in John. Sanders thinks that John Mark could be the man without a garment in Mark’s Gospel which would mean he could still be alive to write John’s Gospel.

While many in the early church supported the idea that the author of John’s Gospel was John the Apostle, there are many problems with this, especially as they often thought that he and the Beloved Disciple were the same. There are problems with the timeline of the Gospel, as for following reasons, it is believed that John’s Gospel was written, at the earliest, at c.90AD which would make the apostle a very old man. The main problem scholars have had with the authorship of the Gospel is with some of the inexplicable silences of some church fathers, such as Ignatius and of Polycarp not quoting from the Gospel. In the end, it is impossible to be certain who the author of the Gospel was, as his identity was evidently not particularly important against his greater task of writing down the Gospel. It could be, as C.K. Barrett suggests, that the gospel was a community effort, or that the author was one of the Johannine Circle, a follower of the Beloved Disciple and his collection from the recollections of the ageing Disciple might account for any errors. We must not rule out the possibility of one or many redactors in the gospel’s history who may have changed parts. Barrett believes that “the evangelist, perhaps the greatest theologian in all the history of the Church, was now forgotten. But he had put in his gospel references to the Beloved Disciple - the highly honoured disciple who years before had died in Ephesus” therefore the evangelist became associated with the Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

However useful it may be to know who wrote the Gospel it is perhaps worthwhile heeding Barrett’s point that “it is more important to understand the theological task achieved by him than to know his name, and more important to know the materials with which he worked, and the way he used them, than to know the date and place at which he wrote.”

Dating the Gospel

It has been supposed for many years that John’s Gospel was the last to be written, and that Mark was the first. C.K. Barrett believes that elements of Mark’s Gospel can be seen in John’s Gospel - “John knew Mark; he not only knew it but had thoroughly mastered its contents, and expected his readers also to be familiar with them.” It is believed that Mark’s Gospel was written c.70AD so we must leave time for it to reach John, and to be read and mastered. While Mark’s influence on John is debatable, there are other pieces of evidence to place the composition within the same time. The prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter would not have been included had it not already occurred and there seem to be some other references to the time of the composition. In 9:22 the evangelist writes “the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue”. Jewish Christians were not expelled from the synagogues until 85-90AD when the ‘test benediction” of Rabbi Gamaliel was written against the minim (heretics), especially Jewish Christians.

The main opponents in John’s Gospel of Jesus are generally characterised as ‘the Jews’ and, unlike the Synoptics, the other main group of Jews, the Sadducees, are not mentioned. The Sadducees were the main group in charge of the Temple and in the Synoptics, the main opponents of Jesus. They dominated the Sanhedrin and were the political leaders of Israel. One would therefore expect to hear of them, especially as the high priest was a Sadducee. However, this can be explained with reference to the history of the time of the evangelist. After the war with Rome and the destruction of the Temple in AD70 the Sadducees’ power base was gone, and, as they had worked with the Roman rulers, they lost at one stroke the trust of their masters, the support of their people and their traditional place of power - i.e. in the Temple where they made sacrifices. On the other hand, the Pharisees were the leaders of the Synagogue and established a rabbinic academy at Yavneh where they became the leaders of Judaism. It was the Pharisees who created the prayer against the minim, and persecuted the Christians and were therefore the opponents of the Johannine Community. It would make more sense to the evangelist then to make the Pharisees the main opponents of Jesus than the now non-existent Sadducees as it was primarily against them that they were fighting. Some have seen other echoes of the Jewish Wars in the Gospel, Barrett finds it “improbable that the allusion in 5:43 to ‘one who comes in his own name’ refers to the messianic claim of Bar Kokheba (AD132). The errors combated are present in germ in the ‘heresy’ refuted by Paul in Colossians, long before AD90”.

It has been seen as significant by some that St. Ignatius never mentions the Gospel, nor does he show any knowledge of it or its somewhat different theology and christology to the other gospels. However, as Barrett points out, this does not necessarily show that the gospel was not existent during Ignatius’ life, but only shows that he had not read it. The most we can draw from that it that the gospel may not have reached him.

There are some other arguments to place the gospel at the end of the first century, one being that John’s Gospel has been accused both of being doceitic heresy, and a book against these heretics at the same time. Doceitism does not seem to have existed before the end of the first century so, unless John evolved that heresy himself and believed in it, it is less than likely that it was written before this time. There is some other evidence in the form of the ‘Monarchian Prologue’ to the gospel which states, “he wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos.” As the Emperor stopped persecution of Christians at his death in AD96 this places the date of the Gospel at about AD95.

Overall, it would appear that the gospel was written at the end of the first century particularly because of the textual inconsistencies with the time of Jesus, which would explain why John believed that Christians were cast out of the synagogues when they were not at that time. Barrett writes that “the wide limits of A.D. 90-140 have now been reached” and the evidence appears to confirm this.

-HolyFool