The evangelist John rests one hand on his gospel book, in this 83-inch-tall marble sculpture carved by Donatello in about 1415 for a niche in the facade of the Cathedral of Florence. Scholars writing Gospel of John commentary often grapple with the question: Who wrote the Gospel of John? Photo: Erich Lessing
The Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, tell the story of the life of Jesus. Yet only one—the Gospel of John—claims to be an eyewitness account, the testimony of the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved.” (“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” [John 21:24]). Who wrote the Gospel of John is a question that remains unanswered, though noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.
Gospel of John commentary is easy to find—some of the most famous theologians in history have closely examined the text and underscored its importance from as early as the beginning of the third century. It is believed that Origen, an Alexandrian Christian scholar and theologian, wrote his Gospel of John commentary while in Alexandria at some point after 218 A.D. St. Augustine—a famous fourth century church father—contributed no fewer than 124 tractates in his Gospel of John commentary, while St. Thomas’ Gospel of John commentary of the 13th century is still highly regarded today by modern scholars.
We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. We do know that the John is a gospel apart, however. Early Matthew, Mark and Luke are so alike in their telling that they are called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning, “seen together”—the parallels are clear when they are looked at side by side. Matthew and Luke follow the version of events in Mark, which is thought by scholars to be the earliest and most historically accurate Gospel. John, however, does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not, something that has been noted in Gospel of John commentary for hundreds—even thousands—of years.
In the brand-new BAS DVD set Digging into the Gospels, leading experts discuss the cities of the Gospels, archaeology’s impact on faith and what we can learn from canonical and noncanonical text. Gospel of John commentary includes James Charlesworth’s “Does the Gospel of John Accurately Describe Jerusalem Before 70CE?”
Several hypotheses have attempted to explain why so much of Jesus’ life not portrayed in the Synoptics is present in John and vice versa. One hypothesis claims that John recorded many of the events that occurred before the arrest of John the Baptist, while the Synoptics all have Jesus’ ministry beginning only after the arrest. Another holds that John was written last, by someone who knew about the other three Gospels, but who wished to write a spiritual gospel instead of an historical one. This would mean that the person who wrote the Gospel of John would not have been a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore would not have been an eyewitness as the author claims. There is also the possibility that the author of John did not know of Mark and hence did not have the same information.
One of the facts in dispute among the four Gospels is the length of Jesus’ ministry. According to the Synoptics, it lasted only about a year, while John has Jesus ministering between two and three years. The Jesus of John’s telling also knew Jerusalem well and had traveled there three or four times. The Synoptics, however, have Jesus visit Jerusalem only once. In John, Jesus had friends near Jerusalem, including Mary, Martha and Lazarus of the town of Bethany, which is just outside of the city on the east slope of the Mount of Olives.
The author of John also knew Jerusalem well, as is evident from the geographic and place name information throughout the book. He mentions, among others, the Sheep Gate Pool (Bethesda), the Siloam Pool and Jacob’s Well. The geographic specificity lends credence to the John’s account.
Another aspect of John that may be more historically accurate than the Synoptics is the account of the crucifixion and the events that led up to it. The Synoptics say that Jesus’ Last Supper was the Passover meal—held that year on a Thursday evening (Jewish holidays begin at sunset)—and they would have us believe that the Sanhedrin, the high court, gathered at the beginning of a major holiday to interrogate Jesus and hand him over to the Romans. John, in contrast, has Jesus handed over for crucifixion on “the day of Preparation of Passover week, about the sixth hour.” According to John, the Last Supper is not a Passover meal (because the holiday that year did not start until Friday evening), and Jesus is crucified and buried before Passover begins. In John’s account Jesus becomes the Passover sacrificial lamb, which was offered the afternoon before the Passover holiday. Some scholars suggest that John may be more historical regarding the crucifixion than the other three Gospels.
Given John’s familiarity with Jerusalem and its environs, it is very possible that he had visited the Pool of Siloam, which he mentions in connection with the story of the curing of the blind man (a story that appears only in John’s Gospel). It is that pool that has only recently been uncovered, as described in the accompanying article.
For more on the question of John’s historical reliability, see D. Moody Smith, “John: Historian or Theologian?,” Bible Review, October 2004.
Based on “How Historical is the Gospel of John?” Biblical Archaeology Review, Sep/Oct 2005, 23.
A related Bible History Daily feature considers the contrast between historian and Biblical figure. Read “Titus Flavius Josephus and the Prophet Jeremiah: Avishai Margalit contrasts the legacies of a historian and a prophet”
This article states that “the Synoptics say that Jesus’ Last Supper was the Passover meal.” What is the evidence for and against the idea that Jesus’ last supper was a Passover celebration? Read Jonathan Klawans’s full article “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?” in Bible History Daily.
Permalink: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/gopel-of-john-commentary-who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john-and-how-historical-is-it/
Previous
I agree that the author of John’s Gospel wrote a more ‘spiritual’ than historical work, though the accuracy of many of his references has been demonstrated. But why do you say that he can’t have been a contemporary of Jesus? If he was a young man aged 17-20 during Jesus’ ministry, he could have written his gospel when he was c. 80 years old, as it is usually dated to the late 1st century. Some have even argued for an earlier date!
John M
It was all written before 70 AD, as the best scholars have proven. This article relies too much on phony scholarship.
I don’t think scholars have proven things one way or another about the date. But as far as an accurate presentation of Jesus, John falls damningly short. John presents Jesus making all manner of wild claims to divinity. No first-century Jew would say anything close, and would not have gained a following. Scholars like Bauckham and Hurtado have shown Judaism at the time was fiercely monotheistic. Even Jesus’ enemies witnessed his miracles and rejected his claims, but the disciples inexplicably never voice a single objection. A thunderous silence that let’s us know John is completely making things up.
Eric, If Jesus didn’t make those claims, then the crucifixion itself makes no sense, why punish him IF he isn’t doing the unexpected and inexcusable. There is no rabble rousing to keep down if Jesus isn’t shaking things up and “making all manner of wild claims to divinity.” Rather, because first-century Jew’s weren’t supposed to be making those claims is exactly why they did want to have him put away.
I agree that it is inaccurate to say that if John’s gospel was written after the Synoptics, that the writer could not have been a contemporary of Jesus. The traditional chronology has Mark written first, based on interviews with and sermons of Peter, by the young man who witnessed events at the end of Jesus’ ministry (fleeing naked from Gethsemene) and who accompanied Paul on some of his travels before joining Peter in Rome. It could have been written as early as 15 years after the crucifixion. Matthew is ascribed to the apostle also known as Levi, a former tax collector. He joined Jesus later in his ministry and relies on Mark for a gospel aimed at a Jewish audience, possibly in reaction to decision by Jewish religious leaders to denounce what had been considered a Jewish sect as heretical c62 CE. Luke appears to have been written shortly after for a specific Greek or Roman patron. All three may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, when many people in Judea at least had at least heard of the events described. John’s gospel and his epistles on the other hand are traditionally believed to have been written long after he fall of Jerusalem, when most, if not all the other eye-witnesses have died due to persecution, war or old age, at a time when John was so old rumors had begun that Jesus had said he would never die (which John takes pains to refute). Both letters and Gospel are written to counter certain beliefs that were growing in popularity as fewer and fewer of the early Jewish apostles and church leaders remained and more cult leaders emerged trying to combine Jesus teachings with Romano-greek philosophy and religious “mysteries”.
That John could have written his gospel at an advanced age (even in his 90s), some 30-50 years after the synoptics, would make his long life unusual, but certainly not impossible or implausible.
As to why, if he was an eyewitness, did he not write his account earlier, John hints at one reason—there may have been a profusion of accurate gospels written in the years just after Jesus’ crucifixion—after all there were another ten apostles (including Judas Iscariot’s immediate replacement mentioned in Acts) aside from himself and Matthew, plus numerous other disciples who survived the brief initial attempt at suppression—at time when the roman world was at the beginning of a publishing revolution—the book (as opposed to the scroll), which was economical, compact, portable and stackable, a form developing from notebooks already in widespread use. “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” Jn 21:25 NIV
I think that John felt there were already more than enough gospels like the synoptics, perhaps detailing more of the “many miracles” the others only mention in passing (e.g. Mk 1:34 “…Jesus healed many…” NIV); and only until he had another aim much later did he feel the need to write his version as well.
This article misses one critical point in presupposing that John is contradictory with the other Gospels in regard to the timing of Jesus’ death:”The chronological reckoning between John’s Gospel and the synoptics presents a challenge, especially in relation to the time of the Last Supper (Joh 13:2). While the synoptics portray the disciples and the Lord at the Last Supper as eating the Passover meal on Thursday evening (Nisan 14) and Jesus being crucified on Friday, John’s Gospel states that the Jews did not enter into the Praetorium “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover” (Joh 18:28). So the disciples had eaten the Passover on Thursday evening, but the Jews had not. In fact, John (Joh 19:14) states that Jesus’ trial and crucifixion were on the day of preparation for the Passover and not after the eating of the Passover, so that with the trial and crucifixion on Friday, Christ was actually sacrificed at the same time the Passover lambs were being slain (Joh 19:14). The question is, “Why did the disciples eat the Passover meal on Thursday?”The answer lies in a difference among the Jews in the way they reckoned the beginning and ending of days. From Josephus, the Mishna, and other ancient Jewish sources we learn that the Jews in northern Palestine calculated days from sunrise to sunrise. That area included the region of Galilee, where Jesus and all the disciples, except Judas, had grown up. Apparently most, if not all, of the Pharisees used that system of reckoning. But Jews in the southern part, which centered in Jerusalem, calculated days from sunset to sunset. Because all the priests necessarily lived in or near Jerusalem, as did most of the Sadducees, those groups followed the southern scheme.That variation doubtlessly caused confusion at times, but it also had some practical benefits. During Passover time, for instance, it allowed for the feast to be celebrated legitimately on two adjoining days, thereby permitting the temple sacrifices to be made over a total period of four hours rather than two. That separation of days may also have had the effect of reducing both regional and religious clashes between the two groups.On that basis, the seeming contradictions in the Gospel accounts are easily explained. Being Galileans, Jesus and the disciples considered Passover day to have started at sunrise on Thursday and to end at sunrise on Friday. The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Jesus, being mostly priests and Sadducees, considered Passover day to begin at sunset on Thursday and end at sunset on Friday. By that variation … Jesus could thereby legitimately celebrate the last Passover meal with His disciples and yet still be sacrificed on Passover day.” -John MacArthur
Trying to find biblical truth is down right impossible. Evangelicals stress their point divinity of Jesus the agnostic, atheist try to make their point. A recovering evangilical who really doubts most of the bible. FormChrist to make sense as redeemer you must accept Genesis and the fall of man. The creatin of Adam and the fall is so riddled with total nonsense God being all knowing created Adam anyway knowing he would bring pain and death into the world. Adam was created with sin nature or he would not have disobeyed God. And why put the temptation in the garden in the first place. I could go on and on about the nonsense of Noah. Jesus was a great teacher and that’s all. Evangelicals please dump blind faith research how he bible was put together 4 gospels representing the 4 winds. How Constantine had an agenda of the divinity of Christ.
Last comment I don’t have an argument with Jesus perhaps he was divine but I search for truth and its darn hard to find. Too many of my evangilical friends felt don’t make me think or confuse me with facts. Perhaps the best book is James it’s the best path of being a Christian. Chuck Swindol a champion of evangilical thought said ” 94% of what’s in John is found nowhere else in the bible.”
Pretty remarkable claims you would like to hear backed up in other gospels. Mark, Luke and Paul never had seen Jesus and Jesus never wrote one word.