Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ John

[Numbers]

Other than tradition

Is there any evidence that the apostle John wrote the gospel of John ?

[jimwalton]

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.

[Nathan]

> John 21.7 aligns a son of Zebedee with "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

It says nothing about a son of Zebedee.

7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he had taken it off, and jumped into the sea.

> 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)

Verse 20 doesn't say anything about John. Just says the beloved disciple leaned against Jesus.

John 21:24 actually confirms that the writer IS NOT the Beloved Disciple:

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that HIS testimony is true.

HIS testimony. The author references the Beloved Disciple's testimony. So that is a different person.

The author has emphasized how much Jesus loved this disciple, by consistently referring to him as “the beloved disciple” and never by a proper name. By having Jesus commit his own mother into the care of the beloved disciple, the author has further emphasized how beloved this disciple was.

We have seen that the synoptic gospels show Peter to be Jesus favourite disciple, with Matthew’s Gospel even saying that Jesus will build his church on this rock. All that disappears in John’s Gospel, where Peter is frequently compared to the beloved disciple and Jesus sometimes even treats Peter with disdain.

I agree with the scholar, Elaine Pagels, that the beloved disciple was a literary device in this gospel, intended to downplay the role of Peter and relegate him to being a lesser disciple.

This Gospel, like all of the other gospels was anonymous and was not written by an eyewitness.

[jimwalton]

> It says nothing about a son of Zebedee.

I think perhaps you haven't read all of it for this discussion. Verse 2 (Jn. 21.2) tells us who was there: Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples. Then verse 7 identifies one of these as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Putting everything we know together, the disciple whom Jesus loved (Jn. 19.26; 20.2; 21.7, 20ff) is the author of the book (Jn. 21.24) is the apostle/disciple John.

> Verse 20 doesn't say anything about John. Just says the beloved disciple leaned against Jesus.

Verse 20 continues the theme and emphasis. The focus of the narrative is Peter and John. Verse 20 references "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper (Jn. 13.25). Those closest to Jesus would have been His inner circle: Peter, James, and John (Mt. 17.1; 26.37; Mk. 5.37; 13.3). We know this "disciple" isn't Peter or James. We know it isn't Judas.

> HIS testimony. The author references the Beloved Disciple's testimony. So that is a different person.

It is even still common in our day for an author to reference to him/herself in the 3rd person. "This author..."

"This is the disciple..." references the once just mention in v. 20, the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who leaned against Jesus at the supper, the one who authored the book. It's John himself.

> We have seen that the synoptic gospels show Peter to be Jesus favourite disciple

But we know the "beloved disciple" was not Peter. And we know it wasn't James.

> I agree with the scholar, Elaine Pagels,

And I disagree with Pagels.

> This Gospel, like all of the other gospels was anonymous and was not written by an eyewitness.

And therefore I also still disagree with your conclusion, as you disagree with mine. I have weighed the balances and found that the case for John's authorship is far stronger than the case against.