douglas

I'm surprised how Christians believe so vehemently that the Gospel of John was written by John himself. This would make the Gospel of John the only gospel written by an eyewitness apostle, and therefore the most "credible?" It's seems that Christians are stepping over some significant evidence that contradicts John's authorship. For example, how could a presumably uneducated fisherman have written such an eloquent gospel?

I've been researching this for a while now and am having a hard time putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together. Here's what I believe...

The Gospel was written by Iranaeus (or a follower of Irenaeus) based on accounts passed down from John to Polycarp, then Polycarp to Irenaeus. It's a theo-political document written specifically to refute gnostic schools of thought. Irenaeus and his buddies were trying to advance the notion that Jesus was actually God, so they wrote this Gospel and assigned John's name to it to add credibility. This would be the equivalant of me writing the memoirs of my great grandfather without ever having met him.

One reason Irenaeus argued to include the other three synoptic gospels in the canon was because Mathew, Mark, and Luke are relatively silent on the issue of Jesus=God.

The positioning of the Gospel of John as the most credible gospel played a significant role in the development of early Christianity, and continues to dominate Christian thought to this day. The concept of the trinity was reinforced, or maybe was born, from this Gospel.

I'm obviously speculating on some of these points, but am I on the right track here?

Malachi151

I don't think so. First off I think that John is conclusively dated to 120 or before. There is also speculation that it has two authors and part of it was written as a gnostic work early on, then changed to the current form later.

I doubt that Irenaeus wrote it.

S.C.Carlson

No, the gnostic Heracleon wrote a commentary on John that predates Irenaeus.

douglas

I'm terrible with dates and venturing into uncharted territory for me, but aren't the Heracleon fragments dated to 150-200AD, which would date them about the same as Irenaeus (130 - 202)? Is it possible that Heracoleon was commenting on Irenaeus' (or Polycarp's) version of John?

S.C.Carlson

The fragments are usually dated to the "third quarter of the second century." Irenaeus flourished in the last quarter. Futhermore, Irenaeus, adv. haer. 2.14.1, shows awareness of Heracleon's views.

Stephen

hatsoff

It's definitely not impossible John wrote it--just highly unlikely. Some even weaker evidence indicates Ceranthus may have written it, but in my opinion there is no individual historical figure to whom the Gospel can be reliably connected. Moreover, I would consider it less likely to have been written by any post-120 AD author (IE Marcion, Irenaeus, Justin, Papias, Polycarp, etc.) than a pre-120 AD author (IE the Apostles, John the Presbyter, Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, John Mark, etc.). Finally, it seems very plausible, though perhaps just shy of likely, that the author of 1 John also wrote the Gospel of John.

But it should be noted I am not particularly well-versed in Johnannine textual and historical criticism.

WishboneDawn

You're describing conservative christian beliefs, not what more mainstream or liberal scholars contend.

Religioustolerance.org has a chart comparing conservative and liberal views. You'll find the liberal views line up with what Malachi described.

douglas

Ok. I'm figuring out that my Ireneaus authorship understanding was wrong but this liberal Christian view of the authorship of John has got me a little confused.

"Conservative" Christians base much of their beliefs on a Gospel that was probably written by someone other than John, but "liberal" Chrisitians believe that John didn't write it but choose to base their beliefs on it anyway???

Gamera

I think ruling John out because he was an "uneducated fisherman" suggests a certain cultural bias. Shakespeare was an uneducated actor and he did pretty well. Studies of literacy for that time suggest that Judean Jews tended to be literate, due to the requirement that Jewish males be able to read the Torah, and the educational efforts of the Pharisees. It's quite plausible that John augmented his rudimentary education (just as Shakespeare did), and cultivated the philosophical language of his mss.

Indeed there is an autodictat's quality to the Johannine mss, as if he were exposed to Platonic ideas through his own reading, rather than through a curriculum.

WishboneDawn

I'm not sure what you mean by "basing beliefs on", not that we literally believe it, right? I found this list on religioustolerance.org as well...

It goes on (here) to list more and it might help you get a perspective on liberal christian thought on the bible. I sort of wish I'd found that before so I could offer the link to people.