Flagg

This post assumes the existence of the historical Christ and is written with the presumption that Christ is described most accurately in the Synoptic Gospels. However, this post can also be considered from the Christ-myth presumption, as well. The post also assumes there was a singular Paul, which is plausibly false, but even in this case the breach in Synoptic vs. Rest of NT theology would still apply to a "body of Paul" theory. Heck, this doesn't even contradict Christianity necessarily, unless you're an inerrantist.

Some points to raise about the Book of John, which will probably be only a refresher to the majority of readers here:

*Unlike the Synoptics, the Book of John includes no parables. Parables were a primarily Jewish method of teaching, as were kingdom teachings (which seldom appear), and instances of hostile Jewish debate ("pronouncement stories," which also do not at all appear). For an author wishing to extend the Christian faith to the Gentiles, such a reconstruction is what one would immediately expect given first-century thought.

*John does not tell of the Virgin Birth. Neither did Paul.

*John is written with a much harsher tone against Jews than the Synoptics, in line with Paul's thought of the Jews' lost inheritance.

*John emphasizes faith-based salvation in a way more in-tune with Paul's letters. See specifically John 6:30-71, John 10, etc.

*John shows a general disharmony, disinterest, or lack of knowledge of more specific details of Christ's life as given by the Synoptics, an unusual turn for a Gospel written much later than the Synoptics. One would expect this of an author who rejected all word-of-mouth Synoptic theology (and other theology e.g. Gnostics), which Paul claimed to reject in his letters (Gal. 1:6-9). A few harmonious details are preserved, but are different than those presented in the Synoptics; however, if grains of historicity are to be taken from the Bible and early church writings, Paul would have known of these details, since he did have to first know these previous gospels to reject them. He had Luke with him, after all.

*Paul was the first, or at least amongst the first, of those to preach the Gospel to the gentile world; that was the subject of the split as described in Acts.

*Paul believed (Gal. 1:12) that Christ dictated the Gospel to him (Paul) Himself. However, we do not have a Gospel attributed to Paul's name, which is highly unusual, given that Paul had preached this gospel to many churches and given Paul's astronomical importance to the early church. John would satisfy this curiosity.

*The book of John never mentions the common notion of a burning Hell. Neither did Paul. If the author of John is the same as the author of Revelation, it would be unusual for this to be left out of Christ's direct preaching.

*John never refers to himself directly throughout the text. There doesn't seem to be a strong case for claiming that John was the "one Jesus loved," as is often stated.

*John concludes with an epilogue implying a scribe for this Gospel. This would fit Paul's style of dictating his letters instead of writing them himself.

I know there's likely no historical evidence that would point the finger conclusively, but given that Paul was the one who spread the word among the Gentiles originally (if Church history is to be believed), it is certainly very likely that the book of John is a product of Pauline theology and rejection of the Synoptic tradition, and plausible that Paul was himself the author of the Gospel of John.

Toto

May I recommend A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings by Roger Parvus, who posts here sometimes.

Apelles was a second century disciple of Marcion, who broke with his teacher. Like Marcion, he accepted Paul as the ultimate apostle and rejected Judaism. Parvus sees the gospel of John as written to reconcile the followers of Apelles with the proto-orthodox.

Sabine Grant

Topic best fit for BCH.

Doug Shaver

I find that a very weak argument.

If the synoptic gospels are Boston and Paul is Los Angeles, then John is closer to Paul than the synoptics are, like Philadelphia is closer to Los Angeles than Boston is.