Outline the arguments of scholars for and against the view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Outline the arguments of scholars for and against the view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle

There are many different views of scholars towards the argument of whether the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle, despite the fact that Christian tradition since century AD has associated the fourth gospel with John the Apostle. The issue of authorship of what we call ‘John’s Gospel’ is still greatly disputed today and I am going to discuss the views of different scholars.

The view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, is the most traditional theory. Stephen Smalley mentions that the main evidence on which this belief relies upon is that of St. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons in AD 177. In two passages of his work, ‘Against Heresies’, Irenaeus testifies that the author of St John’s gospel was ‘John the disciple of the Lord’. He also mentions that John delivered the gospel to the elders of the church in Ephesus where John lived until the time of Trajan (98-117 AD). Smalley views that Irenaeus proclaims are believed to be accurate as he said that his information came from Polycarp (Bishop of Smyra) who is thought of as a reliable source as he heard this claim from John the disciple himself. We know this as in his letter to Florinus (a Gnostic Roman presbyter), Irenaeus mentions Polycarp’s direct contact with John the disciple. Smalley also states that there is not reason to suggest that Irenaeus may have made false claims to Florinus as from Irenaeus’ letter, we can see that Florinus is a good friend of Irenaeus who also knew Polycarp. In Irenaeus’ third book of ‘Against Heresies’ he tells us that at the Last Supper, ‘John the disciple of the Lord’ gave out the gospel at Ephesus after the other Gospels had been written. Stephen Smalley therefore concludes that on the basis of contact with John the Apostle through Bishop Polycarp, the view of Irenaeus is therefore that John (the beloved disciple of Jesus) published his Gospel at Ephesus in his old age.

The view that John the Apostle was in fact the author of the Fourth Gospel is supported by Bishop Theophilus of Antioch who cited the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John the Apostle. Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John, also supports this view with his claims that he wrote down the gospel at John’s dictation. The Gnostic heretic Marcion, who revised a large portion of the New Testament, in the Prologue said that John was an apostle of Jesus.

There are also many more ideas which are shared by many different scholars which support the idea that John the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Firstly, many people point out that when speaking of John the Baptist, the evangelist does not often refer to him as ‘the Baptist’ as the Synoptics do (who use this to distinguish him from John the Apostle). It therefore seems logical that if in fact it was John the Apostle who wrote the Gospel, he did not feel the need to distinguish the Baptist from himself as presumably people knew it was him who wrote the Gospel. Other arguments towards the idea of John the Apostle being the author of the gospel is that the language of the Gospel suggests that it was written by a Jew and also the details in the Gospel suggest a Jewish eye-witness. For example in chapter 21v. 11, there is clear evidence of the author of St. John’s Gospel being a Jewish eye-witness and possibly one of Jesus’ disciples,

‘Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.’

In his Gospel, John himself claims to be a disciple in the gospel. For example in chapter 21, v. 24 he states,

‘This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down…’

However, there is speculation about this verse and some people believe that it may have been added to chapter 21 after the gospel had been published.

There are, however, many ideas of different scholars speculating the theory ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.’

In his Gospel, John himself claims to be a disciple in the gospel. For example in chapter 21, v. 24 he states,

‘This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down…’

However, there is speculation about this verse and some people believe that it may have been added to chapter 21 after the gospel had been published.

There are, however, many ideas of different scholars speculating the theory of John the Apostle being the author of the Fourth Gospel. C. K .Barrett writes that, ‘Although Irenaeus himself sincerely believed that the apostle John had written the fourth gospel, he did not make Polycarp say so’. Also, Polycarp seems to have used the Epistles of John, but does not mention the Gospel itself which leads to doubts upon Irenaeus’ claims. Barrett also writes, ‘the confident testimony of Irenaeus is not valid for the period before him. The history of the Fourth Gospel in the second century is extremely difficult to read, and is certainly no plain tale of unquestioned reverence unhesitatingly accorded to an apostolic book.’ He is therefore implying that the language of the Gospel does not fit in with the time it is set to be written in. A. M. Hunter agrees with Barrett ands says that there is a great difference in style of St. John’s Gospel. He says that In the Synoptics, Jesus speaks with wealth of parables while John has long, mystical discourses but no parables. However, as C. H. Dodd has pointed out, the parables were mainly used with sympathetic ‘common folk’ while in John the discourses are intelligent.

Many scholars have also raised the point that at the apparent composition date of the Gospel (end of the first century), John would have been over the age of 90 and therefore it is very unlikely that he would have still been alive. There is also a tradition that John was martyred along with his brother James about four years after the death of Jesus (Act 12 v. 2). However, Irenaeus did report that John was alive during the early part of Trajan’s reign (near 90 AD) and therefore if this was true, there are still speculations as to whether John the Apostle wrote the Gospel as he would have been very old and therefore his memory would be quite unreliable.

There are also problems with John the Apostle himself. He was a fisherman and not very well educated. Yet, St. John’s Gospel is a work of complex themes and therefore there are doubts to whether John the Apostle was actually capable of producing such work. Also, the author of the Gospel was Jewish and obviously lived during the first century yet the Evangelist shows some ignorance of Palestinian customs and affairs of the time. For example, in chapter 18 v.13 he seems to have believed that the high priest only ruled for one year, and the Sea of Tiberius mentioned was not called such until the second century,

‘and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.’

However, Barrett has a theory, that “it was drawn up, edited and published by persons who had no personal historical contact with Jesus, and perhaps no contact with Palestine; certainly not by an apostle.”

Another identity which people use for the Evangelist is often the Beloved Disciple mentioned in the Gospel. As C.K. Barrett writes, “he was either an unidentified, and unidentifiable, figure, or John the son of Zebedee, represented by an author with much more admiration for his hero than sound historical fact.” Many scholars, including A. M. Hunter, have noticed that for the author of the Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple would mean that he was arrogant to describe himself as ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ (chapter 20 v. 2) and therefore it is very unlikely for the author to be John the Apostle. However, some people could argue that the term ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ could be looked on as humble wonder at the amazing fact, rather than a claim to a special position.

There are a couple other suggestions for the author of the Fourth Gospel, John the Elder or Lazarus. John the Elder is said to be the author of the Second and Third Epistles and he is mentioned by Papias as still being alive at 100AD. If the First Epistle was written by him (and also the second and third) then it is likely that he was also the author of the Fourth Gospel. However, Within the Gospel itself some people have thought that Lazarus could have been the author. J.N. Sanders thinks that the Evangelist used Lazarus as his eyewitness to the events in the Gospel. Some people also believe that the author of the Gospel, the ;Beloved Disciple’ could have been any of Jesus’ 12 disciples.

In conclusion, it is impossible to be certain who exactly is the author of the Gospel. As C.K. Barrett suggests, it could be that the gospel was a community effort, or that the author was a follower of the Beloved Disciple. There is also a possibility that the text of the Gospel was edited after the death of St. John and certain things were added/removed. Barrett believes that “the evangelist, perhaps the greatest theologian in all the history of the Church, was now forgotten. But he had put in his gospel references to the Beloved Disciple - the highly honoured disciple who years before had died in Ephesus” therefore the evangelist became associated with the Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee. However, the most important thing is not who wrote the gospel but the content of it.

Consider the views of scholars concerning the date of the composition of the gospel (6)

Many people believe that John’s Gospel was the last to be written and Mark was the first and this written down by Clement of Alexandria in 212 AD. C.K. Barrett believes that elements of Mark’s Gospel can be seen in John’s Gospel, ‘John knew Mark; he not only knew it but had thoroughly mastered its contents, and expected his readers also to be familiar with them.’ It is believed that Mark’s gospel was written in 70 AD, and so leaving some time for it to reach John, be read and masters it is suggested that St. John’s Gospel was written at the end of the first century. The prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter would not have been included if it had not already occurred, and therefore John’s Gospel must have been written after this event. There are also some other references to the time of the composition. In chapter 9 v. 22, John writes “the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue”. Jewish Christians were not expelled from the synagogues until 85-90 AD when the ‘test benediction” of Rabbi Gamaliel was written against the minim (heretics), especially Jewish Christians.

Some people view that the detail in John is so exact that it is possible it may even have been written a few decades before end of the first century (possibly in Aramaic and then translated into Greek some years later – possible reason for clumsy expressions). St. John’s gospel also contains ideas similar to those found in the First Century Essene writings which also suggests its composition date to be round about the end of the first century. From 85-90 AD a series of Jewish/Christian talks were held under the guide of Rabbi Gamaliel and it seems as though John was aware of these talks as he makes references to their outcomes, which is another point suggesting John’s gospel was written at the end of the first century.

Another aspect of the content of John’s gospel which leads us to believe that it was composed in the first century is the fact that he does not mention the Sadducees, who dominated the Sanhedrin and were the political leaders of Israel. The main opponents in John’s Gospel of Jesus are generally characterised as ‘the Jews’ and, unlike the Synoptics, the other main group of Jews who were the main opponents of Jesus, the Sadducees, are not mentioned. A reason for John not mentioning the Sadducees may be due to the date of the composition of the Gospel. After the war with Rome and the destruction of the Temple in 70 Ad the Sadducees’ power base was gone as they lost the trust of their masters, the support of their people and their traditional place of power – the Temple. On the other hand, the Pharisees were the leaders of the Synagogue and established a rabbinic academy becoming the leaders of Judaism. Pharisees were the ones who persecuted the Christians and after the destruction of the Temple, were believed to be the opponents of Jesus. Therefore if the gospel was written after 70 AD, it would have made more sense to John to make the Pharisees the main opponents of Jesus than the non-existent Sadducees.

There is also physical evidence suggesting that the Gospel was written in the first century. The ‘Rylands Fragment’, dating from about 150 AD, is the earliest piece of New Testament manuscript found and it has parts of John’s Gospel enscribed on it. The ‘Egerton Papyrus’ which contained passages similar to John and the Synoptics was also found in the second century and both pieces of papyri were found in Egypt. This implies that the Fourth Gospel must have been written quite before 150 AD as time would have needed for copies of the Gospel to be made and for the Gospel to be circulated and to reach Egypt.

There are some other arguments to place the gospel at the end of the first century, one being that John’s Gospel has been accused both of being doceitic heresy, and a book against these heretics at the same time. Doceitism does not seem to have existed before the end of the first century so, unless John developed that heresy himself and believed in it, it is unlikely that it was written before this time.

Despite the substantial evidence leading to the belief that the Gospel was in fact composed at the end of the first century, there are also some arguments against this. Some people believe that the gospel was written later, in the second century as there is no evidence by any second century writer, e.g. Iranaeus to John earlier than 150 AD. Also, John was familiar to gnostics like Ptolemaeus and used by him in the middle of the second century. Also, John was used by the writers of the apocryphal ‘Gospel of Peter’ (150 AD) and the Valentinian document called ‘The Gospel of Truth’ (around 150 AD).

Overall, it would appear that the gospel was written at the end of the first century particularly because of the detailed references to events near the end of the century. The best we can say is that the Gospel was not published before 85 AD and not after 150 AD and Barrett in fact writes that “the wide limits of A.D. 90-140 have now been reached” and the evidence appears to confirm this. If we then take Irenaeus’ view that John lived in Ephesus until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, we can then probably predict that the gospel was completed at around 85-100 AD.