4-25-24 How to Scorch the Critics The Texts: John 21:24  This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. John 19:35  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 1 John 1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; The Challenge (Who Wrote the Gospel of John): Gospel of John: Unmasking its True Author The Gospel of John stands as a pivotal component of the Christian New Testament, deeply influential in both theological discourse and spiritual guidance. Traditionally, this Gospel has been attributed to John the Apostle, one of Jesus Christ’s original disciples. However, modern biblical scholarship raises compelling arguments against this attribution, focusing primarily on linguistic style, theological content, and historical context. This post delves into these aspects, presenting a case for reconsidering the authorship of this profound religious text.

1. Linguistic and Literary Style

The Gospel of John is markedly different in style and vocabulary from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). While the Synoptics share a considerable amount of material and present a narrative in a relatively straightforward manner, John’s Gospel is more symbolic and uses a higher level of Greek, not just in terms of vocabulary but also in its philosophical undertones. This suggests a different authorship. For instance, the use of the term "Logos" or "Word" in the opening verses introduces a concept that aligns more closely with Hellenistic Jewish and Greek philosophical ideas than with the simpler narrative style of the Synoptic Gospels.

2. Theological Distinctiveness

John’s Gospel contains theological themes and Christological insights not present in the other Gospels. The depiction of Jesus in John is more abstract and divine from the very beginning—emphasized through declarations like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This high Christology contrasts sharply with the more humanized portrayals in the Synoptic Gospels, suggesting a later development in the understanding of Jesus' nature, which likely evolved after the lifetime of the original apostles.

3. Historical and Contextual Clues

The context and content of John's Gospel also suggest a later authorship. For example, the detailed knowledge of Jewish rituals and the geographical specifics of Jerusalem imply a familiarity that aligns more with a resident or a frequent visitor to the area, potentially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE—long after the death of John the Apostle, if traditional timelines are maintained. Moreover, the text's references to the expulsion of Christians from synagogues ("They will put you out of the synagogues"; John 16:2) likely refer to events that occurred around 85-90 CE, further pointing to a composition date that is decades after the Apostle John would have lived.

4. External Attributions and Early Church Testimonies

While early church tradition ascribes the Gospel to John the Apostle, it is essential to note that these attributions come from later church fathers like Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. The lack of contemporary evidence linking John the Apostle directly to the text, and the reliance on second-generation testimonies, calls into question the reliability of these attributions. It’s possible that the ascription was influenced more by ecclesiastical politics or a desire to anchor the text’s authority in apostolic foundations than by factual history. Conclusion Considering the linguistic, theological, and contextual differences, along with the historical timing of the Gospel's themes and ecclesiastical attributions, it becomes increasingly plausible that the Gospel of John was not authored by John the Apostle but by a later figure or community deeply versed in both Jewish and Hellenistic philosophical traditions.   The Critics Proven Wrong: If you have personally carefully read the Gospel of John for yourself you would know that the claims of unbelieving critics are not at all well founded. John wrote his Gospel after the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been written. John wrote to preserve the record of what our Lord Jesus Christ did and taught, and John did not repeat in his account what was already written in the other Gospel records. The 27 primary source First Century documents included in the New Testament are historical, and by definition were not written at a later time by anonymous writers in the name of a famous apostle of Christ. The Christians who first received the New Testament writings were most careful not to include any writings whose apostolic source was in doubt. The Apostle Paul alludes to this issue when a spurious writing claiming to be from Paul was firmly rejected by Paul himself as mentioned in the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians. For those who have read and studied the Gospel of John at length for themselves as I have done, there are internal evidences that demonstrate that only John, the beloved disciple, could have written it. I have noticed that John was a good eavesdropper. He reports carefully what others in the crowds surrounding Jesus are saying. When you read carefully enough, you learn from John's Gospel that there are certain family relationships revealed that reveal why and how John knew what he did about what was going on. The references John makes to local landmarks, to sociological conditions, to the conflicting religious parties, and his knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, a knowledge far superior to the knowledge of either the contemporary Pharisees or Sadducees, absolutely confirms that only John could be the author of the Gospel of John. John inserts some sly humor that pokes fun at the ignorance of the Pharisees of their own Scriptures when he reports: Joh 7:40  Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Joh 7:41  Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Joh 7:42  Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Joh 7:43  So there was a division among the people because of him. Joh 7:44  And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him. Joh 7:45  Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? Joh 7:46  The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Joh 7:47  Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Joh 7:48  Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? Joh 7:49  But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Joh 7:50  Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Joh 7:51  Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? Notice how the above text from John illustrates how carefully John listened to what was being said by the people in the crowds around him. Now notice how John carefully reports the response of the Jewish leadership to Nicodemus: Joh 7:52  They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Careful readers who actually know their Bibles will get the humor and irony of the "put down" this comment John reports for it demonstrates the ignorance of the scribes and Pharisees and the Sadducees of Jesus's day of their own Scriptures: John 7:52 is a very good example of the fact that the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests DID NOT obey or follow the principle underlying my Rule 5 of my Rules of Interpretation. Rule 5 states (as given in the Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury): (5) Interpret a particular passage in harmony with all other passages which may have a bearing upon the subject. All relevant evidence must be taken into account to arrive at the correct interpretation. These rules are listed at 2Pe 1:20. Expanding my notes for John 7:52 (as given on my Real Bible Study site): If they had looked, they would have found that Jonah and Hosea arose out of Galilee, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha, and Amos (CB). See Isa 9:2 where the Messiah as the great light arises in all likelihood out of Galilee (Isa 9:1). The scribes and Pharisees were unaware of the geography of their own country! The facts as given incidentally in the Bible do confirm that Jonah, Hosea, Elijah, Elisha, and Amos arose out of Galilee. The way to ferret this information out from the Bible is to follow carefully the cross references given in The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury. For Elijah, referred to as “Elijah the Tishbite,” see the references and notes given at 1 Kings 17:1, the Tishbite. i.e. captivity; recourse, *S# H8664. 1Ki 21:17. 1Ki 21:28. 2Ki 1:3. 2Ki 1:8. 2Ki 9:36. From Tishbe, a city of Naphtali in Galilee (Young). +*Joh 7:52. For Jonah, see the references and notes given at 2Ki 14:25, 2Ki 14:25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher. Jonah. i.e. a dove. +Jon 1:1, Mat 12:39, 40; Mat 16:4, Jonas. Amittai. i.e. true, steadfast. *S# H573: 2Ki 14:25, Jon 1:1. Gath-hepher. i.e. wine-press of the well. S# H1662. Jos 19:13, Gittah-hepher. +*Joh 7:52, In Zebulun, in Galilee. For Micah, see the references and notes given at Micah 1:1, Mic 1:1  The word of the LORD that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. Micah. i.e. who is like Jehovah? (2) The sixth of the minor prophets, a native of Moresheth-gath, west of Jerusalem, in Gath. Thus Micah is one of several prophets who did come out of Galilee (%Joh 7:52). He was a contemporary of Isaiah, and prophesied during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, B.C. 750-698. Morasthite. Micah is one of several prophets who did come out of Galilee (%Joh 7:52), as did Jonah (Jon 1:1 note), Hosea, and probably Elijah, Elisha, and Amos. Mic 1:14, +Jer 26:18. It seems ironic that the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’s day were not more aware of at least these examples found in their own Hebrew Scriptures of prophets who did arise out of Galilee. Maybe I should cut them a little slack, though. They had to read and search through Bible books scroll by scroll. They could not have imagined back then anything like the instantaneous search results we can now get for our Bible studies using digital resources. It turns out that Nahum is also of Galilee. Nah 1:1  The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite. Nahum. i.e. comforted, *S# H5151. Elkoshite. i.e. God my bow, i.e. defense; of the gathered of God, *S# H512. From a town in Galilee (Young). A dweller in Elkosh, which Jerome says was a village of Galilee (%Joh 7:52). I found it interesting that the city name "Capernaum" means "village of comfort" or "village of Nahum" (Mat 4:13). All this evidence that there were quite a few prophets who arose from Galilee suggests to me that the Pharisees with their counter-claim against Nicodemus may have "stuck their foot in their mouth." Or, as I sometimes state, they did not do their homework first! Quite obviously, the Pharisees themselves failed to search the Scriptures carefully enough, the point of Rule 5 of my Rules of Interpretation. Jesus commanded us to "Search the Scriptures."