Examining the Debate Surrounding the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
- Get link
- Other Apps
by Bart L. Denny
Originally written on June 29, 2014 and edited only slightly since.
Introduction
All available evidence, both internal and external, shows
convincingly that the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, is the author of the Fourth
Gospel. While this gospel is formally anonymous, the Church has historically (since
the second century A.D., at least) affirmed the Johannine authorship of the
Fourth Gospel. However, the last two centuries have seen considerable debate
over the subject, with scholars advancing numerous alternatives to apostolic
authorship. Most of these alternate theories attach the Fourth Gospel to
sources later in the second century. These proposed sources include a Johannine
community, a postulated John the Elder, another relatively unknown John, and
gnostic sources, to name a few. Indeed, today, most scholars outside of
conservative evangelical circles, particularly outside of the United States,
are of the opinion that the Apostle John is not the author of the gospel the
church has, for centuries, attributed to him. [1]
This paper will also examine the prevailing alternatives and
show them severely lacking, at best, and often premised on faulty
presuppositions. Additionally, this paper will demonstrate that the Apostle
John is the most logical solution to most of the problems connected to the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel. Finally, this paper will assert that the answer to the
question of the Fourth Gospel’s authorship does indeed matter, contrary to the
thinking of many scholars.
Evidence for Johannine Authorship
Before the 18th century, the notion that the Apostle John
authored the Fourth Gospel remained essentially unquestioned. [2] However, beginning
in the 1700s, and in the more than 200 years ensuing, liberal scholars,
particularly the likes of Ferdinand Christian Baur, have strongly questioned the
Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Liberal scholarship concludes, with
Andrews, that, “The internal data make apostolic authorship appear doubtful,”
and that, “the external witness plainly contradicts the idea of apostolic
authorship.” [3]
Individually, most pieces of evidence do not conclusively
solve the problem of Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, many of
the pieces of evidence do raise additional questions of their own. However, considered
in total, both the internal and external evidence for John bar Zebedee as the author of the Fourth Gospel is overwhelming.
Internal Evidence for Johannine Authorship
Even when cast in the light of more recent scholarship, B.
F. Westcott’s classic argument remains a suitable framework for examining the
internal evidence for the Johannine Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. As
Westcott argued over a century ago, readers may deduce from the text of the
Fourth Gospel several characteristics of its author, namely, that the author
was a Palestinian Jew, an eyewitness, and an Apostle—namely, John bar Zebedee.
[4]
The Fourth Gospel never explicitly identifies its author.
Likely, the gospel’s original recipients knew precisely who wrote it. [5] John
21:20-24 apparently identifies the gospel’s author, but not by name. “(T)he
disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20) is the one “bearing witness about these
things, and who has written these things” (Jn 21:24).[6] Obviously, if John and
the Beloved Disciple are one and the same, then John is the author of the
Fourth Gospel. The text of the gospel itself gives ample internal evidence that
this is exactly the case. The gospel’s author possesses an accurate knowledge of
Palestinian topography. Moreover, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the gospel’s
language bears far more similarity to Qumran writings than to Hellenistic
works. In fact, in some places, the gospel’s quotations are closer in form to
Hebrew or Aramaic than to Greek. [7] For Carson and Moo, these are ample proofs
that the author is a Palestinian Jew, not a Hellenistic writer, as some have
alleged.[8]
Analyzing John 1:14, “and we have seen his glory,” Odeberg
sees the author is the Beloved Disciple, an eyewitness, someone with a special
understanding of the “mystery of the person of Christ.” Moreover, the author is
someone who was with Jesus from the beginning to the end of His ministry. [9]
Further, the Beloved Disciple not only claims to be the writer of the gospel
but says that he bears witness of the things in the book, and attests to the truth
of his “testimony” (Jn 21:24). For Bauckham, the language in John 21:24 cannot
be more convincing; the Beloved Disciple is an eyewitness. [10] According to
each of the Synoptics, only the apostles joined Jesus in the Last Supper (Matt
26:20, Mk 14:17, Lk 22:14). The Fourth Gospel records the Beloved Disciple as
present at the Last Supper (Jn 13:23). The Beloved Disciple, then, is one of
the twelve apostles. [11] This eliminates such wildly postulated authors as
Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and John Mark, among others who were not among
those in the upper room the night of Jesus’ arrest. [12]
Morris finds it curious that, unlike the Synoptics, never
mentions John bar Zebedee by name. At the same time, the Fourth Gospel’s author
otherwise takes pains to carefully identify his characters, such as when he
distinguishes between Judas Iscariot and “Judas not Iscariot” (Jn 14:22) and identifies
Thomas as “called Didymus (Twin)” (Jn 20:24). However, also unlike the
Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel refers to John the Baptist simply as, “John.”
Morris argues that these literary features of the Fourth Gospel add to the case
that the gospel’s original readers understood the Apostle John was the writer.
[13]
The Synoptics repeatedly portray Peter and his partners (Lk
5:10), James and John (the sons of Zebedee), as Jesus’ closest confidants.
Likewise, where Peter is often named in the Fourth Gospel as part of the inner
circle, so too is the Beloved Disciple, who is seen reclining at Jesus’ side
(Jn 13:22-23), and at the foot of Jesus’ cross (Jn 19:26). Testifying to the
Beloved Disciple’s place in Jesus’ inner circle, the Fourth Gospel recounts
Mary Magdalene as reporting Jesus’ missing body to Peter and the Beloved
Disciple (Jn 20:2). Again, the author depicts the Beloved Disciple with Peter
in an intimate moment with the resurrected Lord (Jn 21:20-23).
Odeberg sees further evidence in that, where the Fourth
Gospel consistently shows a close relationship between Peter and the Beloved
Disciple, the Book of Acts likewise depicts a similarly close relationship
between Peter and John during a period occurring not long after the events of
John 21. [14] In John 21, the Evangelist records that seven apostles go
fishing, and among them is the Beloved Disciple. The gospel account
specifically records the seven as Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee
(James and John), and two unnamed disciples. The Beloved Disciple is either
James, or John, or one of the two unnamed disciples. James bar Zebedee was the
first apostle to perish, around A.D. 41-44 (Acts 12:1-2), while the Beloved
Disciple, on the other hand, lived long enough to give rise to a rumor that he
would never die (Jn 21:23). [15] The Beloved Disciple cannot be James.
Moreover, the apparent place in Jesus’ inner circle that the Beloved Disciple
holds also strongly suggests he cannot be one of the two unnamed disciples in
John 21.
A number of scholars have advanced the claim that, despite
its clear wording, the Gospel’s postscript (Jn 21:24) does not represent a
claim of authorship by the Beloved Disciple. Indeed, as Carson admits, one of
the strongest arguments against Johannine authorship is that it seems unusual,
even boastful, for a man to refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus
loved.” [16] Morris finds merit to the argument that it seems strange for an
author to refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Morris thinks it
likely that the term is used in a way similar to that of the Apostle Paul, who
refers to Jesus as, “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me”
(Gal 2:20). [17]
On its face, this argument seems to add almost no weight to
either side of the debate concerning the identity of the Beloved Disciple.
However, Jackson’s in-depth treatise on ancient self-referential conventions
convincingly dispels any notion that John 21:24 refers to anyone other than the
Beloved Disciple as the author of the Fourth Gospel. [18] The weight of the
internal evidence, then, convincingly identifies the Apostle John as the
Beloved Disciple and author of the Fourth Gospel.
External Evidence for Johannine Authorship
If only the internal evidence suggested the Apostle John
authored the Fourth Gospel, it might be relatively easy to dismiss such a
claim. However, as Carson and Moo write, “The external evidence that the fourth
evangelist was none other than the apostle John, then, is virtually unanimous,
though not impressively early.” [19]
The tradition of the early church is a witness to the
Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. However, given that the first
unequivocal statement to that effect doesn’t occur until late in the second
century, it is worth examining whether early church traditions are reliable
accounts or merely the stuff of legends. If the tradition is reliable, then the
late second-century writings are also reliable.
Odeberg lays out two criteria for determining the
reliability of a tradition. First, he says, a tradition must be “handed down
and carried forward with unchanged content” from person to person, generation
to generation, and group to group. Second, that unbroken tradition must be
linked all the way back to the people or persons who witnessed the event. The
early Christians, particularly those of Jewish heritage, were part of a culture
notorious for faithfully preserving traditions. That tradition, Odeberg says,
is utterly clear and completely reliable: The Apostle John wrote the Fourth
Gospel when he was an old man living at Ephesus. [20]
Church Tradition (Mid-Second through Early-Third Centuries)
Certainly, before the close of the third century, the
consensus of church tradition—across widely dispersed geographical areas—was
that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel. This agreement is possible
because the church reliably transmitted its earliest traditions. In Against
Heresies (c. 180), Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul, was the first to
unambiguously state that the Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Presumably, Irenaeus would have learned this from Polycarp, who was a disciple
of the Apostle John. [21] As Carson says, “The distance in terms of personal
memories is not very great.” [22] There seems little reason to doubt someone so
little removed from the origin of the tradition. Indeed, the account of
Irenaeus satisfies Odeberg’s criteria for the faithful transmission of a
tradition, unbroken and in original form beginning with its source. [23]
Likely written around A.D. 170-200, the Muratorian Fragment
contains an early list of books the church at Rome held to be canonical at the
time. [24] Bauckham says the Fragment is notable in that it lacks any influence
from Irenaeus, reflecting an independent transmission of the Johannine
authorship tradition. [25] The Muratorian Fragment records that the Apostle
John wrote the Fourth Gospel at the behest of his fellow disciples and bishops.
Additionally, the Fragment says, the Apostle Andrew also had a revelation that
said John should write an account of what he had seen. The Fragment also attested
to the canonicity and authorship by the same John, the Apocalypse of John, and two
epistles. [26] Researchers should probably temper their view of the reliability
of the Muratorian Fragment, however, as it describes the apocryphal Shepherd of
Hermas and Apocalypse of Peter as canonical—contrary to the balance of the
early church’s witness. [27] Still, the Fragment does provide additional weight
to the second-century Asian, African, and European witnesses to the tradition
that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel.
Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 215) testified to the
tradition that, when John returned to Ephesus from exile in Patmos, he
appointed bishops, and that he wrote the last gospel, one that Clement calls a
“spiritual gospel.” [28] Clement agrees with the account given in the
Muratorian Fragment, probably written around A.D. 165-234. That account is
that, as an elderly man, the Apostle John wrote the fourth, and last, gospel in
Ephesus, and that others, including his disciples and bishops, as well as the
Apostle Andrew, had urged him to write. [29] Active in the first part of the
third century, Origen, Clement’s successor in Alexandria, shows clearly in his
extensive commentary on the Fourth Gospel that he views John as the author.
[30] Early in the third century, in his work, Against Praxeas,
Tertullian of Carthage repeatedly quoted from the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:1, 1:3)
and from 1 John, ascribing both works to the Apostle John. [31]
By A.D. 303, Eusebius of Caesarea completed his Ecclesiastical
History, and in it unequivocally expresses what was, by then, the universal
tradition of the church: the Apostle John authored the Fourth Gospel. The
documentary evidence is clear; by the dawn of the fourth century, if not
earlier, the early church universally held to the tradition of Johannine
authorship. While the evidence is not without problems, taken on the balance,
there seems no reason to believe church tradition did not reliably pass down
the tradition of Johannine authorship.
Early Second Century: Evidence from Disciples and Hearers of John
The seven preserved letters of Ignatius of Antioch, which
date from the beginning of the second century, may provide very early, if not
entirely compelling, support for the Apostle John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
As a disciple of the Apostle John, Ignatius would have been intimately familiar
with the apostle’s theology. Admittedly, many observers wonder whether Ignatius
received exposure to the Fourth Gospel; none of his preserved letters explicitly
affirms that he had read it. Certainly, many scholars see echoes of the Fourth
Gospel in the writings of Ignatius. Still, some have argued—with some merit to
their case—that Ignatius’ utilization of Johannine theology could be evidence
that a Johannine Community, of which Ignatius would presumably have been a
part, wrote the Fourth Gospel.
For his part, however, Burghardt goes the farthest, seeing
in Ignatius’ writings an utter textual dependence on the Fourth Gospel. [32] If
Burghardt is correct, Ignatius’ acquaintance with, and dependence upon, the
Fourth Gospel, is a strong argument that, weighted with other evidence, adds
more certainty of the Johannine authorship of the gospel.
Papias and the “Two Johns” Theory
The earliest direct external evidence appealed to in the
debate over the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is the testimony of Papias,
Bishop of Hierapolis. Eusebius, citing Irenaeus, wrote that Papias was, “the
hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” Ferguson concludes that Papias
certainly knew the gospels of Mark and Matthew and that he used the First
Epistle of John. If John wrote his first letter to counteract the mishandling of
his gospel, as scholars such as Ferguson believe, then it follows that Papias
was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel and possessed it when he wrote around
A.D. 100. [33]
Papias seems to add an element of confusion in his writing,
and both Eusebius and modern liberal scholars have seized upon the lack of clarity,
even if today’s liberals arrive at a different conclusion from that of
Eusebius. In his no longer extant writings, which Eusebius quotes, Papias
speaks of a “John the Elder.” It is to this John the Elder that many scholars
ascribe the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. To Morris, this John the Elder is
hardly a problem, however; he says Eusebius overstates the case for two
Johns.[34]
Further, as Manor notes, there are no corroborating
witnesses for the “two Johns” Eusebius sees in Papias. Presumably, Irenaeus
would have possessed the complete work of Papias. Further, he would have known
the Asia Minor tradition, both personally and through Polycarp. Yet Irenaeus
makes no effort to distinguish between an Apostle John and an Elder John.
Frankly, Eusebius seems to have had an agenda. He held a low opinion of Papias’
intelligence because the latter was a millenarian who expected a paradise on
earth at the second coming of Christ. Further, it is probable that Eusebius did
not agree with some of what Papias wrote about the origins of New Testament
writings. [35]
Given the low opinion of The Book of Revelation that
Eusebius held, he was probably all too happy to ascribe the Apocalypse to some
John other than the apostle. [36] Eusebius may also have been motivated to
“cherry-pick” Papias’s writings to bolster his own views, further adding to the
confusion. As Manor sees it, then, the “two Johns” tradition is an
embellishment by Eusebius, motivated by a negative view of Papias. [37]
Further, even if he believed Papias spoke of two Johns, Eusebius, too, believed
that the Fourth Gospel was, unquestionably, the work of the Apostle John. [38]
Moreover, where Eusebius distinguishes between apostles and elders, reasoning
that elders are disciples of the apostles, Papias never makes any such
distinction.[39] In fact, as Carson notes, the Apostle Peter even refers to
himself as an “elder” (1 Pt 5:1). [40]
Irenaeus, who was certainly intimate with the work of
Papias, referred to “the elders” in such a way as to show he understood the
term to mean the senior Christian leaders in a given location. Bauckham contends
that this is an understanding that Irenaeus probably gained from Papias. [41]
Referring to the Apostle John as “elder” would merely have been an allusion to
his status as a leader at Ephesus. The “two Johns” theory becomes even more
tenuous in light of these considerations. Papias does little to bolster
directly the case for the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. However,
looking to his writings to support alternative theories seems an overreach at
best.
The Case Against the Apostle John as Author
According to Morris, many object to dating the Fourth Gospel
as far back as the Apostle John—the late first century—because it supposedly
contains Gnostic ideas. Certainly, all the evidence shows that fully developed
Gnosticism came into its own long after the Apostle John could have possibly
lived. If the Fourth Gospel is of Gnostic origin, then clearly, John could not
have written it. [42] Admittedly, Gnostics certainly seemed to admire the
Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, the Gnostics’ writings do give weight to the
gospel’s Johannine authorship. [43] However, Gnostic enthusiasm for the Fourth
Gospel does not necessitate Gnostic authorship.
Morris calls the ideas in the Fourth Gospel “pre-Gnostic”
with only the most superficial resemblance to fully developed Gnosticism. [44]
Köstenberger, for his part, points out that Irenaeus used the Fourth Gospel to
refute Gnosticism. [45] If John wrote the Fourth Gospel in the late first
century (A.D. 80-85), he died an elderly man. Of course, church tradition holds
that this is precisely the case. However, on occasion, theories have arisen
contradicting the idea.
One such notion, advanced by Philip of Side, and dating to
the fifth century, says John bar Zebedee died at an early age. Another
hypothesis dating to fifth-century Syria also holds the Apostle John to have
died early in the church age—around the time of his brother James. While both
theories would seem to preclude the Apostle John from writing the Fourth
Gospel, Borchert finds neither worthy of further consideration. [46] There is
no reason to believe that John bar Zebedee did not live long enough to have
written the Fourth Gospel.
Some critics have objected to John as the author of the
Fourth Gospel because the gospel’s language seems so different from the
Synoptics. Others object to Johannine authorship because the Synoptics record
John as present at several events that the Fourth Gospel does not even record.
Morris sees no problem here; John tells the story from a different vantage
point, later, with different purposes in mind. John was probably aware of the
tradition behind the Synoptics, if he had not actually read one or more of
them, and may have hoped to correct their misuse. [47] An honest examination
shows that criticisms attempting on invalidate John’s authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, based on differences with the Synoptics, greatly overstate their case.
Others skeptical of Johannine authorship contend that,
as an uneducated man (Acts 4:13), John could not have written a document of
such nuanced complexity, composed in Greek of such high quality. Supposing that
John lacked formal schooling, especially as compared to the rabbinical
teachers of his day, does not mean the man was ignorant or illiterate. Carson
notes that Jewish boys did learn to read and that, as Zebedee was a man wealthy
enough to own fishing boats, his sons may have actually been better educated
than average. [48]
Carson also notes that even some noted rabbis of the day
also lacked formal education. [49] To the idea that a Palestinian Jew such
as John could not have written in Greek of such quality, Carson is certain that
most Galileans, such as John, were bilingual, and spoke both Aramaic and Greek.
[50] Further, John likely wrote at least 50 years after his time with Jesus and
had traveled considerably in the intervening years. It seems strange to
confine an older, wiser John intellectually to his Galilean fisherman origins.
What’s more, a profound experience such as John’s time as a disciple of Christ
during His earthly ministry would have served as such a deep learning
experience that John could have written far more eloquently than his formal
education belies.
An Evaluation of the Alternatives to Johannine Authorship
Based on internal evidence, this paper has already discounted
as possible authors any disciple of Jesus’ who was not one of the twelve
apostles, including Martha, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, and John Mark. This paper
has already discounted the only plausible apostolic author other than the
Apostle John—his brother, James bar Zebedee. Further, in discussing Papias,
this paper has debunked as an implausible stretch the idea that a “John the
Elder,” who was not the apostle, could have written the book. The language of
the gospel, as this paper has shown, also eliminates Hellenistic authors.
This leaves a “Johannine community,” ostensible disciples of
John (and presumably their disciples) who recorded John’s teachings sometime in
the early second century. The first problem for proponents of such a theory is
that there is no concrete evidence. [51] Moreover, Morris finds it odd that, if
a “Johannine community” authored the Fourth Gospel, they never once mention
their hero by name within their narrative. [52]
Carson further exposes the enormous problems with the
“Johannine community” theory—it makes a tremendous assumption that several
spread-out communities of believers, all following the Johannine tradition,
would have contributed to the writing of both the Fourth Gospel and the
correlating Johannine epistles. This community, it is supposed, would have
relied upon “the same traditions, vocabulary, doctrines, and ethical
principles” while producing the stylistic and theological unity the reader
finds in the Fourth Gospel. Carson finds it much easier to believe that the
Apostle John simply wrote the Fourth Gospel and the letters that bear his name.
[53]
Hunter says that no reputable modern scholar believes John
bar Zebedee wrote the Fourth Gospel. [54] Still, as Ferguson counters, “(T)he
burden of proof rests upon those who deny the authorship of John, and since
those who make this denial have failed to select an author upon whom they could
agree, and since no fragment of trustworthy testimony in favor of any other
author than the Apostle John has yet been produced, we must still hold to the
commonly expressed belief that John the Apostle is the author of the Fourth
Gospel…” [55] Over a century later, Ferguson’s argument remains as true as the
day he wrote it, over a century ago.
More historical studies and more archaeological finds have
provided deeper insights into the Johannine authorship debate. Even if one
acknowledges the problems surrounding Johannine authorship—and Westcott was
certainly aware of all the objections of liberal scholars—nothing has come to
light that proposes an alternative author who more simply and plausibly answers
all the questions in the debate.
Conclusion
It seems clear that by the end of the second century, the
church universally regarded the Fourth Gospel as authoritative, canonical, and
written by the Apostle John. Church tradition in the first and second centuries
is demonstrably reliable and, thus, the external evidence for John’s authorship
of the Fourth Gospel is thoroughly sound. No character in the biblical
narrative, other than John bar Zebedee, fits the internal evidence as the author of
the Fourth Gospel.
Those who argue for other solutions to the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel do so from silence and speculation, without producing a shred of
reliable documentary evidence in favor of their theories. Further, such
arguments raise more questions than they answer. In the case of the Fourth
Gospel’s authorship, the most logical explanation, answering the most
questions, is also the simplest. However imperfect it is, the sheer mountain of
evidence for the Johannine authorship vastly outweighs the alternative arguments.
To those who argue that who wrote the Fourth Gospel matters
not so much as what the gospel says, this author counters with strong
disagreement. If the inerrancy and authority of Scripture are of the utmost
importance, as this author and the preponderance of the evangelical Christian
community would contend, then the authorship of John matters. If the Fourth
Gospel is of a late or pseudonymous origin, then it is not what it clearly
claims for itself—the account of an apostle of, and eyewitness to, Jesus Christ.
If the Fourth Gospel misrepresents itself, then it cannot speak with the
authority of God, regardless of whether the book’s teachings agree with
theological orthodoxy or not. Fortunately, the preponderance of the evidence
says that is not the case.
While not beyond any doubt, that the Apostle John wrote the
Fourth Gospel is ultimately, historically, and theologically, the least
problematic of all theories.
Bibliography
Andrews, Mary E. “The Authorship and Significance of the
Gospel of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 64, no. 2 (June 1945):
183-92.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The
Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006,
Kindle.
Borchert, Gerald. John 1-11: An Exegetical and
Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. New American Commentary. Vol.
25A. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1996.
Bruce, Frederick F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
Burghardt, Walter J. “Did Saint Ignatius of Antioch know the
Fourth Gospel?” Theological Studies 1, no. 2 (May 1, 1940): 130-156.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 19, 2014).
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar
New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the
New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
Ferguson, W. L. “The Fourth Gospel After a Century of
Criticism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 53, no. 209 (January 1896): 2-27.
Grant, Robert M. “The Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal
of Biblical Literature 69, no. 4 (December 1950): 305-22.
Jackson, Howard M. “Ancient Self-Referential Conventions and
their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John.” Journal
of Theological Studies 50, no. 50 (April 1999): 1-34.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
——. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament. Edited by Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2004.
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Stephen O. Stout. “‘The
Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle—A Response to Richard
Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18,
no. 2 (2008): 210-31.
Manor, T. Scott. “Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The
Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John.” Vigilae Christianae 67
(2013): 4.
Nixon, John A. “Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? The Authorship
and Occasion of the Fourth Gospel According to Patristic Evidence from the First
Three Centuries.” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 82-92.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel of John. New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1995.
Odeberg, Hugo. “The Authorship of St. John’s Gospel. Concordia
Theological Monthly 22, no. 4 (April 1951): 226-50.
END NOTES:
[1] Leon Morris, The Gospel of John, New
International Commentary on the New Testament, Revised edition (Grand Rapids,
MI: 1995), 4-5.
[2] W. L. Ferguson, “The Fourth Gospel After a Century of
Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 53, no. 209 (January 1896): 2.
[3] Mary E. Andrews, “The Authorship and Significance of the
Gospel of John,” Journal of Biblical Literature 64, no. 2 (June 1945):
187.
[4] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John,
Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991),
70-71.
[5] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Stephen O. Stout, “‘The
Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle—A Response to Richard
Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,’” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18,
no. 2 (2008): 212.
[6] All Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible,
English Standard Version.
[7] Morris, 11.
[8] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to
the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005): 236.
[9] Hugo Odeberg, “The Authorship of John’s Gospel,” Concordia
Theological Monthly 22, no. 4 (April 1951): 226-227.
[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2013), 365, Kindle.
[11] Carson and Moo, 237.
[12] On occasion, scholars also propose John Mark as author
of the Fourth Gospel, based on a theory that the early church confused him with
the Apostle John. There is simply no convincing evidence to sustain this
notion.
[13] Morris, 7-8.
[14] Odeberg, 229.
[15] Carson and Moo, 237.
[16] Carson, 76.
[17] Morris, 8.
[18] Howard M. Jackson, “Ancient Self-Referential
Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the
Gospel of John,” Journal of Theological Studies 50, no. 1 (April 1999):
33.
[19] Carson and Moo, 232.
[20] Odeberg, 230-233.
[21] Morris, 16.
[22] Carson, 68.
[23] Odeberg, 233.
[24] F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988): 159, Kindle, and John A. Nixon, “Who
Wrote the Fourth Gospel? The Authorship and Occasion of the Fourth Gospel
According to Patristic Evidence from the First Three Centuries.” Faith and
Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 86.
[25] Bauckham, 427.
[26] Bruce, 164. According to Bruce, the epistles were
probably 1 John and 2 John, although he admits, it is possible that 3 John
(rather than 2 John) is a possibility.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Odeberg, 234.
[29] Ibid., 233.
[30] Nixon, 90-91.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Walter J. Burghardt, “Did Saint Ignatius of Antioch
know the Fourth Gospel?” Theological Studies 1, no. 2 (May 1940): 156.
[33] W. L. Ferguson, “The Fourth Gospel After a Century of
Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 53, no. 209 (January 1896): 15.
[34] Morris, 21.
[35] Bauckham, 12-13.
[36] Carson and Moo, 234.
[37] T. Scott Manor, “Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The
Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John,” Vigilae Christianae 67
(2013): 4.
[38] Carson and Moo, 232.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Carson, 70.
[41] Bauckham, 17.
[42] Morris, 16-17.
[43] Ibid., 17-18.
[44] Ibid., 12.
[45] Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013): 7.
[46] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11: An Exegetical and
Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, New American Commentary, Vol. 25A
(Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1996), 1638, Kindle.
[47] Morris, 15.
[48] Carson, 74.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid., 75.
[51] Morris, 5.
[52] Ibid., 22.
[53] Carson, 81.
[54] Morris, 5.
[55] Ferguson, 25.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.