I'm just curious why nobody here seems to think that the disciple John wrote the book of John?

Epitome

We don't know who wrote the Gospel of John.

Tradition says that it was the Apostle John (frequently termed 'the most loved' and not to be confused with John the Baptist who was beheaded long before Jesus was crucified).

Many scholars feel that it was composed by a disciple of John who recorded his preaching as Mark recorded Peter's teachings.

It was probably first published near the close of the first century. The early Christian church accepted it as authentic apostolic testimony of Jesus.

Hope this helps.

Epitome, Did John the "beloved son" write John? No, I think
it was Philip the Apostle. But I am not sure. I am too tired
to look up references, but I will probably do so tomorrow.

I have my own story about John. His alternate name was Eutychus.
Acts 20:09 and he became Agrippa I's servant, 19-(256)
with the sole purpose of retrieving the clothes Jesus wore
prior to the crucifixion. You see, Jesus was wearing the garb
of the high priest and Agrippa (the soldiers) confiscated these
clothes during the crucifixion. Agrippa took these clothes in
A.D. 33 and went to Rome without his wife. He returned the
following year and retrieved his family and took John with
him. Agrippa I will later be assassinated by Simon Magus by use of
poison and the clothes Agrippa was wearing were the clothes
Jesus wore prior to the crucifixion (ACT 12:21). These clothes will
be returned to the Jews Ant 20-(6).

thanks, offa

Who wrote the book of John?

Well, if you take the author at his word, then it would be John...

John 21:24 (NIV)
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Sounds like John wrote it himself, but if not John then perhaps his amanuensis?

I guess we'll never know for sure, but why don't we just take the author at his word for a change?

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 12, 2001).]

John the baptist was beheaded to return to the "netherworld" . . . which later became the "upper room" and is why I hold that John the Baptist wrote the Gospel of John. This is why he was with Jesus and was his "beloved apostle."

Amos

John 21:24 (NIV) This is the disciple who testifies to
these things and who wrote them down. We know that his
testimony is true.


The disciple who wrote the above was not the original
author. The last chapter of John was a later edition
written by another "John". One of the reasons that John 21
was added was because in the original John there were
obvious disagreements between St. Peter and Jesus. Also,
the original John revealed "mysteries" in writing and this
did not go over with the Essenes.

thanks, offa

John the baptist was beheaded


That, my friend, is figurative writing. When Salome (Martha)
did the exotic dance for Antipas and desired John's head
served on a platter she was asking for his cap,(
EZE 44:18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads,)
and for this reason John was put to death;
(Ant 18-119)
Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious
temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there
put to death.

This headress was worn by Simon Magus and is mentioned in
John 20:07 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying
with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place
by itself.

John the Baptist was never a disciple of Jesus'. The Clementine
Homilies tell about John having 28 1/2 disciples to represent
the lunar phases. A woman was counted as 1/2 of a man and his
woman was good old Martha, the woman at the well. She had five
husbands (John's rank was a five) and she committed adultery
by leaving the cult of John (Sin-Moon)and joining the cult of Jesus
and thus sinning no more.

thanks, Offa

The writer remains anonymous. John 21:24 indicates that someone other than the writer himself witnessed what Jesus may have done and said.

The verse serves as propaganda. It MUST proclaim the "truth" of the narrative. In deed, if the narrative had actually been "true," then no one would have felt compelled to declare it so.

There are good reasons for supposing that John the son of Zebedee WAS NOT the writer of "John."
1. There is no evidence to suggest that John could speak Greek. (As a native of Galilee, he more than likely spoke Aramaic.)
2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.
3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.
4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality.

rodahi

Hi Offa, John the Baptist was beheaded much like Seneca committed suicide. Both are true events but neither were physical events.

Seneca's tragedies are failed 'divine comedies' and since there was nothing divine about such tragedies they were called Senecan tragedies. Macbeth is a good one but called a Shakesperean tragedy because Divine comedies are not recognized in England (and therefore also not its counterpart). Titus Andronicus is a detailed account of such a tragedy.

John the Baptist was 'born of old' in the netherworld of our subconscious mind. It is here that he prepared the way of salvation because Eve (your Martha here) must remain passive and perplexed enough to be persuaded to cross over to the other side. Remember here that Mary theotokos and Mary Magdalene (your Martha again) have been at emnity with each other since the beginning of time (conscious awareness) and are now soon to join forces much like Herod and Pilate.

John the Baptist was never a disciple because the 'helpers' (apostles) were eiditic images personified and John was much greater than that. He was the primary cause for the rise and fall of Joseph the upright carpenter. Based on this the Church holds that Baptism is needed for salvation because we too must be born of water and spirit or purgatory will become our final destiny instead of 42 months. In other words, not just melancholy but involutional melancholy is needed for salvation.

I like the things you write and understand what you are communicating. You are probably reading some heretic material which is perhaps true but would scatter the flock if accepted as doctrine.

Amos

I would say that John wrote the Gospel of John. But when I say "wrote" I don't me he was the one who literally took quill to papyrus and wrote the words. I mean that he was in the greatest part responsible for the content.

Just because John could not speak Greek in 30AD hardly means that he can't do so 30-60 years later (or whenever you believe John was written). 2nd Peter is often accepted as written by Peter because of the such bad Greek of its composition. If we can believe that Peter managed to learn enough Greek to write 2nd Peter before his death, we can surely stomach the idea that John learnt at least some Greek in his life - which was supposedly 40 or years longer than Peter's. Are we also to suppose that John had no help available to help him write a Gospel? Come on: He was one of the Apostles and great leaders of the early Church - if he had asked for help with his Greek in the composition of a Gospel he would have gotten it.
Even assuming he spoke no Greek whatsoever, it is just as plausible that he could dictate in Aramaic and have it translated.

Again what is to stop him using a scribe to write what he dictates? And what is to stop him getting help from other leaders of the Church with his writing?

Could you give specific examples please?

Personally I envisage the composition of John as something of a group effort. John along with a few other head members of the Church would have written it together. Since John would have made the greatest contribution to content they understandably entitled it the Gospel according to John. Thus I think that things like this:
were part of the original composition and were the writing of the Church to which John belongs. In this verse they are endorsing John's tesimony.