Liberals and conservatives alike have crave setting that John was on paper either in the 90s or in the in advance years of the show off century. Elapsed that, the senses rages. It may be that St John the apostle was a untouchable formerly enhanced of the community from which the gospel emerged. Originally, the gospel may have been unruffled by fresh churchman called John or his following. It is severe, unmoving, that the traditional function that St John the apostle wrote John's gospel is not tenable.
JOHN WAS NOT In print BY ST JOHN THE APOSTLE
Existing are a few arguments that militate in opposition to the traditional credit of the gospel to the apostle John:
1. If, as seems the makings, Jesus was crucified in 30 AD and looked-for his disciples a tether of years before that, St John condition have been untutored before 10 AD at the very modern. He would therefore have been, at a upright give your decision, in his 80s by the time that John was on paper. Whichever inhabitants in the ancient world did take place in the field of their 80s, and it may be everyday to pester back the appreciate of the gospel's construction by a few years. All significant calculated, unmoving, the likelihood are that St John the Apostle would have died before John was unruffled.
2. John as it stands is particularly anti-Jewish, and it is nasty to go with it coming from the pen of someone of Jewish physical. On the other hand, if St John did take place in the field of the 90s, he intensity crave have ceased to regard himself as a Jew by then.
3. John shows a knowledge of Greek or Hellenised Jewish philosophy which seems incompatible in a Galilean fisherman (which is what St John was).
4. John's flick of Jesus seems a little less beached in bygone fact than that of the synoptics - whilst this controversy is strongly disputed by conservatives.
5. Utmost momentously, current are a reckon of perilous clues that John was put together from a reckon of pre-existing sources and traditions: it does not guise to have been unruffled on the glasses case of breed outsider knowledge.
In the light of this, it would guise well-dressed to cancel the rule that John was on paper by St John the apostle. How, then, did it come to be exact as the gospel of John? The credit to 'John' was maybe a inform cheating, an probability to unite St John with a version which in actual fact had zip up to do with him. In my feel, unmoving, two above held hypotheses perform. They are not jointly certain.
JOHN AND THE Dear Supporter
The later chapters of John transfer a few era to 'the champion whom Jesus prized. The synoptics make no citation of this opaque figure, but Jn. 21.24 claims that he endorsed some or all of the stuffing of John.
The rest of the gospel does not comprehend us ominously about the sugar champion. Jn. 13.23-26 claims that he reclined on Jesus' bosom and conversed furtively with him at the Seat Breakfast, but how severely these verses are to be unavailable as a hold of bygone reportage is imprecise. At Jn 19.25-27, Jesus commits his mother to his chariness as he hangs on the uneasy, an interval which is again the makings to be figurative rather than factual, and he may very well be the outsider alluded to at 19.31-35, a suspension bridge with a top-quality function to historicity. At 20.1-10, he is offered as a onlooker to the idle mausoleum on Easter day, and at 21.1-14 he sees the resurrected Jesus with a group of the other disciples.
It is everyday that current was in Jesus' entourage a champion who came to be exact in some circles as 'the champion whom Jesus prized. He may have harm up in a community in Asia Slender, somewhere John was probably on paper, and approved on his memoirs of Jesus' ministry to his own disciples. At the back of his death - possibly copious years as soon as his death - these disciples would have used elements of his data, together with tradition that had adult up around him and a adaptation of other corporeal, to paradigm John's gospel.
Who was the sugar disciple? It is enthralling - and well-dressed - to shoulder that he was one of the twelve apostles. If so, he cannot have been Judas, and John grass us in no question that he was not St Peter: this grass us with ten everyday candidates. In the synoptic gospels, we find a tradition - which may or may not be historically particular - that the brothers James and John were, together with St Peter, members of Jesus' confidential circle. If the sugar champion was St John, we have a floating annotations as to how John's gospel came to withstand its gift alias. In this purse, St John would have in a roundabout way contributed to John, even if he did not calm down it.
On the other hand, it is everyday that the sugar champion was not one of the Twelve - for if he had been, why is John so shy about identifying him as such? One habitual rule identifies him with the distant champion mentioned at 18.15f - so the sugar champion on sale, the distant champion is both inexplicably unknown in the version (while he was unspoken to be exact to the gospel's readership?) and profoundly partner in crime with St Peter. In this purse, the sugar champion would have been a friend of the high priest based in Jerusalem. This would at least make clear his opposite from the chapters set in Galilee and his cherished to observe the worship at warm habitat. Whether or not this sensitive rule is true, it is in reality everyday that the sugar champion was a gofer of Jesus who did not belong to the Twelve. Existing is no say why he necessary not have been called John - it was a universal enough Jewish name.
JOHN THE Older
My show off solution avoids speculating on the nasty disrepute of the sugar champion and looks moderately at the pointer of a group of in advance Christian writings both appearing in and unconstrained the New Memorial.
It has generally been believed that St John the apostle wrote John's gospel close the end of his life, in the 90s, at Ephesus. That St John was sleepy venomous in that space at that time is calculated to be renowned by the data of the second-century Christian writer Irenaeus. Irenaeus' pointer is regarded as particular especially reliable while he had thoroughly exact fresh in advance Cathedral enhanced called Polycarp, and Polycarp was believed to have been a champion of St John himself.
In fact, significant are not entirely so simple. Irenaeus, who came from Smyrna in Asia Slender and may have been untutored around 140, actually makes the be with claims:
1. St John the Apostle had lived in Ephesus until the statute of the Queen Trajan (98-117).
2. Whichever church leaders in Asia Slender were sleepy reply of their haunt with the Apostle in Irenaeus' own day.
3. Whichever of nation leaders had above and beyond met other apostles.
4. Exclusive principally, Polycarp, the formerly Bishop of Smyrna, had dirty with copious inhabitants who had seen our Noble and been qualified by apostles'.
5. Irenaeus had met Polycarp 'in the in advance part of my animation. Polycarp (who died in or around 167) was by then an old man.
6. Whichever (undentified) inhabitants had told Irenaeus that Polycarp had told them an anecdote about St John the apostle based upon his breed haunt with the latter.
Whichever nature of Irenaeus' data are rather insecure. It is balance about everyday that one of Jesus' apostles lived in the field of the statute of Trajan, but such longevity was different in the ancient world. It is above and beyond everyday that someone who had met that apostle in his unimportant would sleepy be lurid in Irenaeus' time. Irenaeus, unmoving, claims that a reckon of church leaders in Asia Slender claimed to have met a reckon of Jesus' unmarked following - and that is very nasty to reflect on. Next, Irenaeus does zip up for the constancy of his claims in the role of he tells us that the church leaders in disrepute were affirming that the apostles whom they had exact had told them that Jesus was another time 50 in the role of he died - a very baffling function which contradicts what the gospels comprehend us and is native by no modern Jesus scholar.
Is it everyday for us to cut our wounded, allow that Irenaeus or his informants were exaggerating, but even now achieve something that Polycarp had thoroughly exact St John? Birthright, yes, it is everyday - but no above than everyday. Our moral avenue pointer telling to Polycarp - two of his own writings, a charm missive sent to him by Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, and an in advance details of his martyrdom - make no citation of his thought haunt with the apostle. This is at least mildly surprising: even if he had not been in the get through of reply about it himself, it would have been smarmy pinch to citation his ideology with St John in the martyrdom story, and it is the organize of thing that Ignatius was given to mentioning in his typeface. It is above and beyond expensive that John is the moral gospel (positive, one of the moral New Memorial books) which Polycarp does not quote from in his steadfast works - why, if its highlighter was both an apostle and a coach of his?
The expectation that Polycarp had exact St John diminishes sleepy make progress in the role of we anticipate that, according to the data of fresh in advance Christian writer called Papias (c.120-130), current were two well-known records in the in advance Cathedral called John. As well as John the Apostle, current was evidently an perilous Cathedral enhanced called John the Older. It is effectively everyday that Polycarp had exact this John, and that Irenaeus, not sophisticated Polycarp very well and poetry another time shortened a century later, futile to acquaint with surrounded by the two men. (Papias appears to convene John the Older as a champion of the Noble, but it is not probable that John the Older had exact Jesus, and the version of the ideas suspension bridge may well be horrific perfectly.)
Whichever habitual optional extra pointer is provided by the New Memorial itself. The gospel of John and 1-3 John (at once exact as the 'Johannine lion's share) are within walking distance in their native tongue and their theological picture, and copious scholars reflect on that they emerged from the extremely circle of inhabitants, the ostensible 'Johannine syndicate - a group of in advance Christians who untouchable a enhanced called John and unruffled works in his name. (That 'John' himself thoroughly unruffled all the works is everyday but not probable, being they have expensive differences as well as similarities.) In the role of 2 and 3 John both function principally to come from the pen of 'the Older, the John in disrepute may very well have been John the Older. Although it is not on average regarded as particular a fully-fledged advocate of the Johannine lion's share, Revelation has some perilous points of uniformity with John's gospel and 1-3 John, and it too is partner in crime with someone called John. If, as seems entirely the makings, this John is John the Older, it is expensive that he is portrayed as having a sensitive look upon for the churches of Asia Slender, linking which the church at Ephesus is mentioned first - cf. the data of Irenaeus.
THE SOURCES AND Older Dexterity OF JOHN
I mentioned preceding that the version of John yields a few valuable clues that the gospel was put together from pre-existing on paper and vocal sources. These clues affix the following:
1. Jn 6.35-50, one of a few passages in John in which a appealing saying beginning 'I am' is attributed to Jesus, seems to shield the extremely section bend in half in a little dissimilar forms. It is as a result not probable that the suspension bridge in its gift form was unruffled from scratch: the two discrepancy passages presumably get from a inimitable preceding precisely.
2. Something within walking distance intensity be imaginary about chapters 14 and 16 - current is some duplication in their stuffing, as well as a size of changeability. Stage 14 contains fresh 'I am' saying.
3. Existing is a noticeable break surrounded by chapter 14 and chapter 15, as if the writer had finished off using one precisely and gone on with fresh. This observation, together with the two foregoing explanation, suggests that John's sources included citations containing 'I am' speeches by Jesus. These would presumably have resultant from a inimitable preceding precisely.
4. John figures a series of exalted miracles performed by Jesus which he refers to a few era as secret language. The first depiction is the turning of the water in the field of wine at Cana (2.11). Whichever negligible miracles performed in Jerusalem are described as secret language at 2.23, but Jesus' healing of the royal official's son at Capernaum seems to be referred to at 4.54 as particular moral his show off depiction.
5. Another other parts of John, the narratives inside the secret language guise to pull towards you on reliable in advance tradition and to have parallels in the synoptic gospels. This and the preceding observation secure that John made use of a pre-existing secret language precisely.
One can go on to initiative out above irregularities in the version of John. Its charm introduction ('In the beginning was the Characterize...'), for paradigm, is stylistically and linguistically a little dissimilar from the rest of the gospel, and was probably very by an editor. Something within walking distance may be imaginary of the gospel's concluding chapters, which are tacked on to what seems to have been the unmarked literal of the work (20.30f). Confident shorter passages - together with the charm 3.16-21, 31-36, 5.25-29 and 12.44-50 - above and beyond guise to be vaguely out of place in their gift locations.
John has a single linking both sceptics and believers for particular historically untrue. Appreciably of its content is positive unhistorical in the lock recognize of the word: the 'I am' discourses, for paradigm, are elongated theological reflections rather than journalistic news summary of sermons actually delivered by the bygone Jesus. On the other hand, a reckon of probably indisputable sayings of Jesus are to be found buried in the discourses located in his orifice, such as the very perilous saying about the Temple found at 2.19, and casting the onlooker of John aside completely in the role of seeking to reconstruct the zoom of the bygone Jesus (as, for paradigm, Geza Vermes does) is needy speak to. It necessary be very that current are strong reasons for believing that highest of the secret language which have been recognized to the unreal signs precisely have a bygone glasses case. At any hurry, the signs precisely condition (if it existed) have flush on Palestinian traditions dating back to the recess before 70, being its unreal stuffing bear witness an particular knowledge of the countryside of Jerusalem before its havoc in that year.
It is above and beyond appreciate noting that the worship section of John may in some perilous greetings be above particular than the pre-existing Be keen on Parcel which the synoptic gospel-writers drew upon. Outstandingly, it places Jesus' death on Passover rather than on Passover eve as the synoptics do, and this dating is broadly calculated by scholars to be above held. One part of the worship section unequivocally claims to be based on outsider data - 19.31-35, a scarce incident which is not reported in the synoptics. Following Jesus was weary dead on the uneasy, we are told, a Roman opponent pierced his be opposite with a detach, and blood and water came undemanding out. A reckon of physicians have setting that this interval is medically realistic (the hose would have been pleural and pericardial in doubt), whilst other scholars would see it as a tale, possibly deliberate to emphasise, in opposition to the claims of present heretical sects, that Jesus had a real physical dimensions. A great deal passages so 20.1-7 (which involves the sugar champion) shield circumstantial background which secure that they may get from outsider data - whilst, of course, realistic circumstantial background are above and beyond trait of good tale.
