Who wrote the Gospel of John?
1 - Introductions to the Books of the Bible - Father Reda Adly. Image 1.
We leave you with this contradiction and confusion
(The Gospel of John was written around 100 AD - John lived during the reign of Trajan in 98 AD - Jerome says that John died between 92 and 95 AD because he died 62 years after the crucifixion) ... So how was the Gospel written in 100 AD?
2 - Introductions to the Books of the Bible - Father Reda Adly. Image 2.
(Many testified that John was the writer) and he brought testimonies ... All of these testimonies except one (the Muratorian Canon) say that the writer is John but they do not say that he is John the son of Zebedee - a person named John - John the Priest - John the Saint....etc.
By the way,
according to the image: Among those who testified, Basil wrote in 125 AD - while Basil was in the fourth century AD.
According to the image: Josephus wrote in 145 AD - while Josephus died in 100 AD.
According to the picture: The Muratorian Canon was written - an anonymous document in the New Testament canonical books - dating back to the end of the second century - and it is the only one that attributed the Gospel of John to one of the twelve disciples.
In the same Muratorian Canon: The Apocalypse of Peter, why didn't you add it?
In the same canon: The Epistle to the Laodiceans
, why didn't you add it? In the same canon: The Epistle to the Hebrews was not mentioned, why did you add it?
In the same canon: Only two letters from John were mentioned, why did you accept three letters?
In the same canon: The two letters of Peter were not mentioned, why did you add them?
So why do you cite this anonymous document?
-----
We will present the testimonies of the fathers from Bruce Metzger's book - The Canon of the New Testament.
A - Clement of Rome (late 1st century AD - early 2nd century AD)
had not heard of the Gospel of John and did not mention the Gospels in his letters (1 Clement, which was in the canon of Scripture for a time, and 2 Clement, whose attribution is doubtful).
Bruce Metzger writes:
To summarize, Clement's sacred book is the Old Testament, which he repeatedly refers to as Scripture, quoting from it with some accuracy. Clement also occasionally refers to certain words of Jesus; although they are reliable for him, he does not seem to inquire how they can be guaranteed.
In two of the three instances in which he speaks of remembering the "words" of Christ or the Lord Jesus, he seems to have a written record in mind, but he does not call it a "gospel." He knows many of Paul's letters and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he knows well.
Although these writings are of great importance to Clement, he never refers to them as reliable "Scripture."
B - Ignatius of Antioch - early 2nd century AD
Written by Bruce Metzger
He probably knew the Gospels according to Matthew and John, and perhaps also Luke. There is no evidence that he considered any of these Gospels or Epistles to be "Scripture".
C - Didache - 2nd century AD.
He did not refer to any of the Gospels and did not teach the Gospel of John.
D - Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis -
Bruce Metzger writes
that nothing is known about the life of Papias beyond Irenaeus's comment (Ad. Haer. v. xxxiii. 3-4) that he was "a man of long ago" who had heard the apostle John preach and was also a friend of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. From this it seems that Papias lived from about 70 to about 140 AD.”
Bruce Metzger also says: “
Besides these oral traditions, which Papias was pleased to collect, he also included in his commentaries two brief accounts of the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. The notice he gives to the second Gospel is very brief, just one sentence: “Matthew composed the sayings in Hebrew and each one interpreted (or translated) them as best he could.”
Papias does not say that there is a Gospel called John—he mentions only Matthew and Mark.
E. Polycarp—second century AD, who is cited as having been a disciple of John and testifying to him
Bruce Metzger says that
, by way of summary, Polycarp’s relatively short letter contains far more references to the New Testament writings than are found in any of the other Apostolic Fathers. He certainly had a collection of at least eight Pauline letters (including two Pastoral letters), and was familiar with Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John. As for the Gospels, he mentions the sayings of the Lord which We find it in Matthew and Luke.
With one exception, none of Polycarp’s many allusions are cited as Scripture—an exception, as we have seen, that some believe has been misattributed to the Old Testament. He
does not even say that Matthew and Luke are Scripture. He may quote them as you would a history book.
And Tatian, of Syria, wrote a book called the Diatessaron in 160 AD, which brings together the four Gospels.
Here is the first reference to the Gospel of John in the East.
Bruce Metzger writes
that the Diatessaron provides evidence that all four Gospels were considered reliable, otherwise Tatian would hardly have dared to combine them into one. At a time when many Gospels were competing for attention, it is surely significant that Tatian chose only these four—and the presence of an occasional extra-canonical phrase or sentence in the fabric of the Diatessaron does not negate this consideration.
Around 172 Tatian returned to the East, where he became the founder of the Encratites (i.e. "the Disciplined").
This group rejected marriage as adultery, condemned the use of meat in any form, and the drinking of wine, going so far as to replace water with wine in the service of the Eucharist.
He did not say that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel - only the Gospel of John.
G - Theophilus of Antioch - late 2nd century AD
The first to use the word Trinity
and the four Gospels were considered reliable by him.
But he did not say that the author of the Gospel of John was John the son of Zebedee
. 3 - Introductions to the Books of the Bible - Rev. Reda Adly. Image 3.
(John did not explicitly state that he was the author, but he hinted, so his hint was like a statement, as he was trying to hide himself!!)
Did he want to announce himself or hide himself?
4 - The Jesuit translation of the Bible - Image 4.
(We cannot rule out the assumption that John the Apostle wrote it, but critics do not accept this possibility)
Who do not accept this possibility? Muslims?
No, they are biblical scholars.
(Some of them leave the author's name)
(And some of them say that he is the old John that Papias spoke about)
This is what Papias said: And what he said has nothing to do with what he said that the Gospel of John was written by one of the twelve, he mentions the twelve disciples and mentions two who have the name "John", one of whom he called the priest John:
"If anyone who was a follower of the priests came, I would inquire about the words of the priests, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any of the Lord's disciples said, and what Aristion said and the priest John said, the Lord's disciples."
(And some of them add that the author was connected with a tradition connected to John the Apostle)
Is there confidence or certainty that the writer is one of the twelve apostles?
5 - The Jesuit translation of the Holy Bible - Image 5.
(As for the author and the date of the composition of the Fourth Gospel, we do not find any clear evidence for them in the author himself.
6 - Explanation of the Gospel of John - Ibrahim Saeed - Image 6.
It is likely that he wrote the Gospel between 95 and 98.
While Jerome says that he died 92 to 95. While others say that he lived to the reign of Trajan 98.
7 - Bart Ehrman wrote in his book The New Testament - Image 7 from the original source:
The author (author) of the Fourth Gospel:
Like Mark, Matthew, Luke, and the Book of Acts, the Gospel of John was written by an unknown person. But since the second century, it has been attributed to John, son of Zebedee, who is generally believed to be the mysterious “Beloved Disciple.”
The idea that a follower of Jesus wrote the book is based on two comments in the text itself: (a) the reference to an eyewitness who saw water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (19:35) and (b) the reference to the Beloved Disciple as the person who witnessed and wrote about these things (21:24).
However, there are serious problems with The belief that these verses indicate that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Gospel. For example, 19:35 says nothing about who actually wrote the traditions, but only that the disciple who witnessed Jesus’ death spoke the truth (“He who saw these things testified, so that you also might live. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth”). Furthermore, 21:24 indicates that whoever this disciple was, he was someone other than the author of the final form of the book. Notice how the verse distinguishes between “the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down” and the author who describes them: “We [anyone other than the disciple himself] know that his testimony is true.”
So some of the traditions of this gospel may ultimately go back to the preaching of one of Jesus’ original followers, but that is not the same as saying that this follower himself wrote the gospel. Could this unnamed disciple be John the son of Zebedee? One puzzling feature of this gospel is that John is not mentioned by name here. Those who believe he wrote the gospel claim that he did not explicitly refer to himself out of modesty. Not surprisingly, those who believe he did not write it argue quite the opposite, that he was not named because he was an unimportant figure in the story of Jesus to members of this community. In fact, the evidence can probably be read either way. For what it is worth, Acts indicates that John the son of Zebedee was uneducated and unable to read and write (the literal meaning of the Greek word is “unlearned or illiterate”; Acts 4:13).
In any case, it should be clear from our analysis that the Fourth Gospel was probably not the literary product of a single author. Clearly, one person was responsible for the final product, but whoever that person was, constructed the gospel from a number of pre-existing sources that had circulated within the community over many years. The author appears to have been a native Greek speaker living outside Palestine.
Since some traditions presuppose a Palestinian origin (given the Aramaic words), it may be that the community moved into a Greek-speaking area and gained a large number of converts there at some point in its history. Whether the author accompanied the community from the beginning or was a later relative is a problem that will probably never be resolved.
(The Gospel of John was written around 100 AD - John lived during the reign of Trajan in 98 AD - Jerome says that John died between 92 and 95 AD because he died 62 years after the crucifixion) ... So how was the Gospel written in 100 AD?
2 - Introductions to the Books of the Bible - Father Reda Adly. Image 2.
(Many testified that John was the writer) and he brought testimonies ... All of these testimonies except one (the Muratorian Canon) say that the writer is John but they do not say that he is John the son of Zebedee - a person named John - John the Priest - John the Saint....etc.
By the way,
according to the image: Among those who testified, Basil wrote in 125 AD - while Basil was in the fourth century AD.
According to the image: Josephus wrote in 145 AD - while Josephus died in 100 AD.
According to the picture: The Muratorian Canon was written - an anonymous document in the New Testament canonical books - dating back to the end of the second century - and it is the only one that attributed the Gospel of John to one of the twelve disciples.
In the same Muratorian Canon: The Apocalypse of Peter, why didn't you add it?
In the same canon: The Epistle to the Laodiceans
, why didn't you add it? In the same canon: The Epistle to the Hebrews was not mentioned, why did you add it?
In the same canon: Only two letters from John were mentioned, why did you accept three letters?
In the same canon: The two letters of Peter were not mentioned, why did you add them?
So why do you cite this anonymous document?
-----
We will present the testimonies of the fathers from Bruce Metzger's book - The Canon of the New Testament.
A - Clement of Rome (late 1st century AD - early 2nd century AD)
had not heard of the Gospel of John and did not mention the Gospels in his letters (1 Clement, which was in the canon of Scripture for a time, and 2 Clement, whose attribution is doubtful).
Bruce Metzger writes:
To summarize, Clement's sacred book is the Old Testament, which he repeatedly refers to as Scripture, quoting from it with some accuracy. Clement also occasionally refers to certain words of Jesus; although they are reliable for him, he does not seem to inquire how they can be guaranteed.
In two of the three instances in which he speaks of remembering the "words" of Christ or the Lord Jesus, he seems to have a written record in mind, but he does not call it a "gospel." He knows many of Paul's letters and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he knows well.
Although these writings are of great importance to Clement, he never refers to them as reliable "Scripture."
B - Ignatius of Antioch - early 2nd century AD
Written by Bruce Metzger
He probably knew the Gospels according to Matthew and John, and perhaps also Luke. There is no evidence that he considered any of these Gospels or Epistles to be "Scripture".
C - Didache - 2nd century AD.
He did not refer to any of the Gospels and did not teach the Gospel of John.
D - Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis -
Bruce Metzger writes
that nothing is known about the life of Papias beyond Irenaeus's comment (Ad. Haer. v. xxxiii. 3-4) that he was "a man of long ago" who had heard the apostle John preach and was also a friend of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. From this it seems that Papias lived from about 70 to about 140 AD.”
Bruce Metzger also says: “
Besides these oral traditions, which Papias was pleased to collect, he also included in his commentaries two brief accounts of the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. The notice he gives to the second Gospel is very brief, just one sentence: “Matthew composed the sayings in Hebrew and each one interpreted (or translated) them as best he could.”
Papias does not say that there is a Gospel called John—he mentions only Matthew and Mark.
E. Polycarp—second century AD, who is cited as having been a disciple of John and testifying to him
Bruce Metzger says that
, by way of summary, Polycarp’s relatively short letter contains far more references to the New Testament writings than are found in any of the other Apostolic Fathers. He certainly had a collection of at least eight Pauline letters (including two Pastoral letters), and was familiar with Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John. As for the Gospels, he mentions the sayings of the Lord which We find it in Matthew and Luke.
With one exception, none of Polycarp’s many allusions are cited as Scripture—an exception, as we have seen, that some believe has been misattributed to the Old Testament. He
does not even say that Matthew and Luke are Scripture. He may quote them as you would a history book.
And Tatian, of Syria, wrote a book called the Diatessaron in 160 AD, which brings together the four Gospels.
Here is the first reference to the Gospel of John in the East.
Bruce Metzger writes
that the Diatessaron provides evidence that all four Gospels were considered reliable, otherwise Tatian would hardly have dared to combine them into one. At a time when many Gospels were competing for attention, it is surely significant that Tatian chose only these four—and the presence of an occasional extra-canonical phrase or sentence in the fabric of the Diatessaron does not negate this consideration.
Around 172 Tatian returned to the East, where he became the founder of the Encratites (i.e. "the Disciplined").
This group rejected marriage as adultery, condemned the use of meat in any form, and the drinking of wine, going so far as to replace water with wine in the service of the Eucharist.
He did not say that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel - only the Gospel of John.
G - Theophilus of Antioch - late 2nd century AD
The first to use the word Trinity
and the four Gospels were considered reliable by him.
But he did not say that the author of the Gospel of John was John the son of Zebedee
. 3 - Introductions to the Books of the Bible - Rev. Reda Adly. Image 3.
(John did not explicitly state that he was the author, but he hinted, so his hint was like a statement, as he was trying to hide himself!!)
Did he want to announce himself or hide himself?
4 - The Jesuit translation of the Bible - Image 4.
(We cannot rule out the assumption that John the Apostle wrote it, but critics do not accept this possibility)
Who do not accept this possibility? Muslims?
No, they are biblical scholars.
(Some of them leave the author's name)
(And some of them say that he is the old John that Papias spoke about)
This is what Papias said: And what he said has nothing to do with what he said that the Gospel of John was written by one of the twelve, he mentions the twelve disciples and mentions two who have the name "John", one of whom he called the priest John:
"If anyone who was a follower of the priests came, I would inquire about the words of the priests, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any of the Lord's disciples said, and what Aristion said and the priest John said, the Lord's disciples."
(And some of them add that the author was connected with a tradition connected to John the Apostle)
Is there confidence or certainty that the writer is one of the twelve apostles?
5 - The Jesuit translation of the Holy Bible - Image 5.
(As for the author and the date of the composition of the Fourth Gospel, we do not find any clear evidence for them in the author himself.
6 - Explanation of the Gospel of John - Ibrahim Saeed - Image 6.
It is likely that he wrote the Gospel between 95 and 98.
While Jerome says that he died 92 to 95. While others say that he lived to the reign of Trajan 98.
7 - Bart Ehrman wrote in his book The New Testament - Image 7 from the original source:
The author (author) of the Fourth Gospel:
Like Mark, Matthew, Luke, and the Book of Acts, the Gospel of John was written by an unknown person. But since the second century, it has been attributed to John, son of Zebedee, who is generally believed to be the mysterious “Beloved Disciple.”
The idea that a follower of Jesus wrote the book is based on two comments in the text itself: (a) the reference to an eyewitness who saw water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (19:35) and (b) the reference to the Beloved Disciple as the person who witnessed and wrote about these things (21:24).
However, there are serious problems with The belief that these verses indicate that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Gospel. For example, 19:35 says nothing about who actually wrote the traditions, but only that the disciple who witnessed Jesus’ death spoke the truth (“He who saw these things testified, so that you also might live. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth”). Furthermore, 21:24 indicates that whoever this disciple was, he was someone other than the author of the final form of the book. Notice how the verse distinguishes between “the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down” and the author who describes them: “We [anyone other than the disciple himself] know that his testimony is true.”
So some of the traditions of this gospel may ultimately go back to the preaching of one of Jesus’ original followers, but that is not the same as saying that this follower himself wrote the gospel. Could this unnamed disciple be John the son of Zebedee? One puzzling feature of this gospel is that John is not mentioned by name here. Those who believe he wrote the gospel claim that he did not explicitly refer to himself out of modesty. Not surprisingly, those who believe he did not write it argue quite the opposite, that he was not named because he was an unimportant figure in the story of Jesus to members of this community. In fact, the evidence can probably be read either way. For what it is worth, Acts indicates that John the son of Zebedee was uneducated and unable to read and write (the literal meaning of the Greek word is “unlearned or illiterate”; Acts 4:13).
In any case, it should be clear from our analysis that the Fourth Gospel was probably not the literary product of a single author. Clearly, one person was responsible for the final product, but whoever that person was, constructed the gospel from a number of pre-existing sources that had circulated within the community over many years. The author appears to have been a native Greek speaker living outside Palestine.
Since some traditions presuppose a Palestinian origin (given the Aramaic words), it may be that the community moved into a Greek-speaking area and gained a large number of converts there at some point in its history. Whether the author accompanied the community from the beginning or was a later relative is a problem that will probably never be resolved.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment