by jimwalton » Thu May 26, 2022 10:12 am
The Gospel never mentions John by name. The Gospel mentions two sons of Zebedee in John 21.2, which other Gospels identify as James and John. John 21.7 aligns a son of Zebedee with "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Verse 20 identifies the disciple whom Jesus loved as the one who leaned against Jesus at the Last Supper and asked the question of Jesus (Jn. 13.23-24), and it identifies this same disciple as the writer of the Gospel (Jn. 21.24). This internal evidence points to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel. It doesn't prove it, but it points strongly in his direction.
There is at least plausible evidence that John wrote in his Gospel that he is the son of Zebedee, the beloved disciple, and the writer of the book (Jn. 21); (2) that there's at least plausibility to believe that John was literate, and (3) he doesn't HAVE to use only his own eyewitness accounts to be credible (it's a very rare modern author who doesn't use ANY footnotes...I have other factors that all point to John as author:
1. The writer had very good, even "insider" knowledge into the apostolic group of disciples. Though this is by no means conclusive of John, it can point in his direction.
2. The writer knew Palestine and its culture very well. Though this is by no means conclusive of John, it can point in his direction.
3. The writer knew the topography of Palestine well. It leads us to believe he could have lived there.
4. The writing style is that of a Jew of Palestinian culture.
5. The controversies of the book are 1st-century controversies, not the kinds of questions discussed in the 2nd c. These point to a 1st-c. author.
This Gospel, of all four, has many touches of an eyewitness.
Everything about these point in John's direction, though obviously it COULD be someone else. But then we can turn to external witness:
- Irenaeus, in about AD 180, about 90 years after the writing of the book, claims that John wrote the Gospel. He says he got that idea from Polycarp, who knew John personally.
- Theophilus of Antioch (also around 180) says it was John.
- The Muratorian Fragment (175-200) indicates Luke and John were authored by Luke and John
- Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) says it was John.
- Tertullian (c. 200) says it was John. Tertullian makes a clear statement (in "Against Marcion," 4.5) that the authors of the Gospels were known from he beginning. He said that no Gospel should be accepted if it is anonymous.
In other words, there are no attributions except John. the early Church unanimously attributed it to John. There is no competing theory, no other author suggested or even entertained.In conclusion, just with this brief overview, the internal evidence points to John. The corroboration factors point to a person who fits John's profile. The external evidence points unanimously to John.
In addition, ...
Brant Pitre argues that no anonymous copies of John (or of Mt, Mk, or Lk) have ever been found. They do not exist, and possibly never have.
Craig Blomberg writes,
"There are no actual examples in early Christian history of a document known to have been written by someone other than the person to whom it is attributed, which were deemed acceptable by a sizable segment of the Church. Certainly there are no known examples of books being accepted into the New Testament that were believed to have been written by someone other than the person to whom they are ascribed, with the possible, partial exception of 2 Peter."We have no evidence at all that early Christianity accepted pseudonymity as a legitimate device in the testimony that exists. (That came in the second century.)"
Brant Pitre (again):
"It is utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman Empire in multiple copies could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts—with all four of the Gospels. If the Gospels were truly anonymous, we would expect to find some attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the same Gospels attributed to others elsewhere. If the Gospels really got their titles from scribes falsely adding them to manuscripts up to a century later, we would expect to find both (1) anonymous copies, as well as (2) contradictory titles."
What we end up with here is that the case for John's authorship is FAR stronger than the case against it.
The Gospel never mentions John by name. The Gospel mentions two sons of Zebedee in John 21.2, which other Gospels identify as James and John. John 21.7 aligns a son of Zebedee with "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Verse 20 identifies the disciple whom Jesus loved as the one who leaned against Jesus at the Last Supper and asked the question of Jesus (Jn. 13.23-24), and it identifies this same disciple as the writer of the Gospel (Jn. 21.24). This internal evidence points to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel. It doesn't prove it, but it points strongly in his direction.
There is at least plausible evidence that John wrote in his Gospel that he is the son of Zebedee, the beloved disciple, and the writer of the book (Jn. 21); (2) that there's at least plausibility to believe that John was literate, and (3) he doesn't HAVE to use only his own eyewitness accounts to be credible (it's a very rare modern author who doesn't use ANY footnotes...I have other factors that all point to John as author:
[list]1. The writer had very good, even "insider" knowledge into the apostolic group of disciples. Though this is by no means conclusive of John, it can point in his direction.
2. The writer knew Palestine and its culture very well. Though this is by no means conclusive of John, it can point in his direction.
3. The writer knew the topography of Palestine well. It leads us to believe he could have lived there.
4. The writing style is that of a Jew of Palestinian culture.
5. The controversies of the book are 1st-century controversies, not the kinds of questions discussed in the 2nd c. These point to a 1st-c. author.[/list]
This Gospel, of all four, has many touches of an eyewitness.
Everything about these point in John's direction, though obviously it COULD be someone else. But then we can turn to external witness:
[list][*] Irenaeus, in about AD 180, about 90 years after the writing of the book, claims that John wrote the Gospel. He says he got that idea from Polycarp, who knew John personally.
[*] Theophilus of Antioch (also around 180) says it was John.
[*] The Muratorian Fragment (175-200) indicates Luke and John were authored by Luke and John
[*] Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) says it was John.
[*] Tertullian (c. 200) says it was John. Tertullian makes a clear statement (in "Against Marcion," 4.5) that the authors of the Gospels were known from he beginning. He said that no Gospel should be accepted if it is anonymous.[/list]
In other words, there are no attributions except John. the early Church unanimously attributed it to John. There is no competing theory, no other author suggested or even entertained.In conclusion, just with this brief overview, the internal evidence points to John. The corroboration factors point to a person who fits John's profile. The external evidence points unanimously to John.
In addition, ...
Brant Pitre argues that no anonymous copies of John (or of Mt, Mk, or Lk) have ever been found. They do not exist, and possibly never have.
Craig Blomberg writes, [quote]"There are no actual examples in early Christian history of a document known to have been written by someone other than the person to whom it is attributed, which were deemed acceptable by a sizable segment of the Church. Certainly there are no known examples of books being accepted into the New Testament that were believed to have been written by someone other than the person to whom they are ascribed, with the possible, partial exception of 2 Peter."We have no evidence at all that early Christianity accepted pseudonymity as a legitimate device in the testimony that exists. (That came in the second century.)"[/quote]
Brant Pitre (again): [quote]"It is utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman Empire in multiple copies could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts—with all four of the Gospels. If the Gospels were truly anonymous, we would expect to find some attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the same Gospels attributed to others elsewhere. If the Gospels really got their titles from scribes falsely adding them to manuscripts up to a century later, we would expect to find both (1) anonymous copies, as well as (2) contradictory titles."[/quote]
What we end up with here is that the case for John's authorship is FAR stronger than the case against it.