BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It?

A look at some of the questions surrounding the Bible’s most enigmatic gospel

Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It?

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’s 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 wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. We do know that 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.

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.


The religion section of most bookstores includes an amazing array of Bibles. In our free eBook The Holy Bible: A Buyer’s Guide, prominent Biblical scholars Leonard Greenspoon and Harvey Minkoff expertly guide you through 21 different Bible translations (or versions) and address their content, text, style and religious orientation.


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, September/October 2005.


This Bible History Daily article was originally published in March 2012.


 

Tags: Archaeology archaeology review archaeology sites author of john beheading of john the baptist bethesda pool bib arch bib arch org Bible bible history bible history daily Bible Interpretation bible jesus bible people bible review bible translations Biblical biblical arch Biblical Archaeology Biblical Archaeology Review Biblical Archaeology Sites biblical scholars biblical sites biblical topics biblicalarchaeology biblicalarchaeology.org birth of jesus books of the new testament crucified Crucifixion crucifixion methods crucifixion roman did jesus did jesus exist different bible translations first christmas first four books of the new testament flavius joseph flavius josephus free ebooks gospel john gospel of john gospel of john commentary harvey minkoff historical jesus history of christ history of christmas History of Crucifixion holy bible James james charlesworth jeremiah jerusalem Jesus jesus birth jesus exist jesus healed the blind man jesus historical jesus is jesus jesus jesus last supper jesus last supper passover jesus last supper passover seder jesus life jewish holidays john the baptist josephus last supper last supper passover last supper passover seder lazarus life of jesus luke machaerus magdalene martha mary mary magdalene mary magdalene a prostitute mary magdalene wife mary magdalene wife of jesus matthew mount of olives New Testament parables of jesus passover passover meal passover seder passover seder meal People in the Bible pool of siloam prophet jeremiah roman crucifixion Roman Crucifixion Methods sanhedrin seder seder meal sheep gate pool siloam Siloam Pool story of jesus story of jesus birth the author of john the beheading of john the baptist the bible jesus the birth of jesus the crucifixion the first christmas The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus' Birth in History and Tradition the gospel of the gospel of john the history of christmas the history of crucifixion the holy bible the jesus the last supper the life of jesus the new testament the parables of jesus the pool of siloam the story of jesus the story of jesus birth titus titus flavius josephus visit jerusalem was jesus last supper a seder was mary magdalene was mary magdalene a prostitute who wrote the gospel of john wife of jesus www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Related Posts


106 Responses

  1. RP says:

    I disagree with your assumption that passover was on Friday. There are 7 high sabbath’s in Jewish culture following the 7 Jewish feasts. Jesus needed to stay in the ground like jonah in the belly of the fish. He was probably killed on a Wednesday with the high sabbath of passover that night until Thursday night since Jewish days run evening to evening. Which means the women buy the spices to prepare the body on Friday and regular passover happening Friday night to Saturday night. Jesus probably rose from the dead late Saturday night and Mary discovered the empty tomb Sunday morning

  2. JaredMithrandir says:

    The Ministry is no 2 or three years in John, that is an error people make because they assume it’s all Chronological. I believe ever Passover mentioned in John is the Passover of 30 AD. And the second part of John 2 is explicitly about events that happened the same Passover season as the Crucifixion in the Synoptic accounts.

  3. William Hayward says:

    The Gospel was authored by John.

    – Written within his lifetime (i.e. in 1st century).
    – All titled manuscripts ascribe authorship to John.
    – The author was most likely a Palestinian Jew (based on his understanding & familiarity with Jewish customs, scripture, and the topography).
    – The author was an eye-witness and disciple (John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24, 1 John 1:1-3)
    The following attribute or connect the Gospel with an apostle/disciple/John:
    – Epistula Apostolorum (140-150)
    – Ptolemy (140-160)
    – Justin Martyr (150)
    – Theodotus (160-170)
    – Heracloen (170)
    – Muratorian Fragment (170)
    – Anti-Marcionite prologues to Luke (160-180)
    – and John (160-180?)
    – Celsus (177)
    – Irenaeus (180)
    – Theophilus of Antioch (181)
    – Clement of Alexandria (195)
    – Tertullian (207)
    – Hippolytus (200-210)
    – Origen (220-230)
    – Dionysius of Alexandria (247)
    – Cyprian (250)
    – Novation (250-257)
    etc.

  4. Believer says:

    Yes. John was sopposedly tied in to the temple and that’s how he was able to follow Jesus into the trial while Pete had to stay out in the courtyard. From what I understand, John Mark was the son of the wealthy widow who was hosting and supporting Christ. He was educated. He turned away from traveling with Paul and returned to Peter. The reason for he and Polycarp (John’s helper) to want to get the eye witness testimony in writing is twofold. One is that everybody was being hunted down and executed and the eyewitness testimony needed to be passed on before the original disciples did. Two is that there were people trying to pervert the facts of Christ’s mission and were misleading the church with lies for their own personal gain much like cult leaders of today. The disciples programmed with the Holy Spirit given them after Christ ascended were on a mission to GO and spread the word. They were DOING and going all over. Only when stopped by prison do you see letters and writings. If God could release the ability to suddenly speak in all languages to the disciples, he most certainly could have given them the ability to write. Scholars and professors have to publish. It is a requirement of tenure. They have to find an angle and it mostly involves their overly developed egos and their flawed reasoning, not the facts. Much less faith in the well preserved word of the One True God introduced to us through the Original Jewish race.

  5. Believer says:

    I think that verse is John 21:22 Sonja. It relates to Peters jealousy of John I think.

  6. Believer says:

    From what I understand, John Mark was the son of the wealthy widow who was hosting and supporting Christ. He was educated. He turned away from traveling with Paul and returned to Peter. The reason for he and Polycarp (John’s helper) to want to get the eye witness testimony in writing is twofold. One is that everybody was being hunted down and executed and the eyewitness testimony needed to be passed on before the original disciples did. Two is that there were people trying to pervert the facts of Christ’s mission and were misleading the church with lies for their own personal gain much like cult leaders of today. The disciples programmed with the Holy Spirit given them after Christ ascended were on a mission to GO and spread the word. They were DOING and going all over. Only when stopped by prison do you see letters and writings. If God could release the ability to suddenly speak in all languages to the disciples, he most certainly could have given them the ability to write. Scholars and professors have to publish. It is a requirement of tenure. They have to find an angle and it mostly involves their overly developed egos and their flawed reasoning, not the facts. Much less faith in the well preserved word of the One True God introduced to us through the Original Jewish race.

  7. Sonja Raela says:

    Does someone know where or to whom were the words addressed: “what is that to thee, follow thou me”? Some ascribe it to John, Chapter 20, verse 20, but I haven’t been able to verify this.
    Thank you.

  8. Stephen Myers says:

    You leap to so many unsupported conclusions in so few paragraphs, although clearly none of these are a leap of faith! It is unclear who the author of Mark was, true. But the majority of scholars consider him to have been either an eyewitness or an associate of eyewitnesses, as evidenced by the details in Mark that do not exist in the other Gospels. was he John Mark, Peter’s interpreter? Was he the young man who ran away naked at the arrest? It is also untrue that scholars consider that the author of Luke was unaware of Matthew’s Gospel, as the author of the Gospel himself states that he has made a thorough investigation of events, it is highly unlikely that he would have been unaware of a gospel that was widely in circulation amongst Jewish christians in Jerusalem.

    Even if the accounts were not eyewitness stories, they were written in living memory of events, and many eyewitnesses were available. The belief that these details were a “work of fiction” is not supported by the evidence, and not a belief held by any serious first century historian.

    Both Faith and scepticism should be based on evidence.

  9. bev says:

    To the person who finds the evidence for Christ’s apperance weak.

    Could it be that the Gospel authors whom reported who saw the risen Lord. and the location of the appearances of Christ after His rise from the dead, that they either had witnessed or had confindence in the reports of those who had? And left out any that they were not certain of?

    When asked to tell a lawyer activities a girl claiming to be unable to work again after a car accident, I gave examples of the activities that she had posted afterward that myself and husband both remembered seeing. If he did not recall seeing her horse back riding or bridge diving, I did not include it.

  10. John Montonye says:

    Just because there seem to be differences in the details between the books does not discredit the message of Jesus Christ. Consider that these books were written years after the crusifiction, some of them decades apart. Now consider your own memory of events in your own life, and how the details of those memories compare to those of your friends who shared in the same experiences. Generally, the stories are the same, but often, the details don’t match.

  11. Diehl Ackerman says:

    I am still looking for someone who will provide me with an alternative scenario to the resurrection which would explain the actions of first century Christians who were willing martyrs or would be martyrs.

  12. Connie Condra says:

    Matthew’s gospel says that the last meal Yeshua shared with His disciples was the day after Passover. Passover is a single day. The next seven days are called “The Feast of Unleavened Bread.”

    Matthew 26:17 (NASB95)
    ” 17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Passover was on Wednesday the year the Yeshua was crucified. He was arrested either late on Thursday night (the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread or early on Friday morning.Such an obvious error would seem to call the accuracy of your entire commentary into question.

  13. gary says:

    “One can no longer speak of a consensus against Johannine dependence on the Synoptics or, at least, on Mark. The reasons for the revival of interest in favor of John’s dependence are varied.”

    —New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, in his book, The Death of the Messiah (1994), p. 76

    Gary: How many times have you heard conservative Christian apologists say that even if the authors of Luke and Matthew were dependent on Mark, the author of John was not. “Scholarship demonstrates that the Gospel of John is not dependent on the Synoptics, therefore we have at least two independent sources (Mark and John) for the Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection stories found in the Gospels.”

    Not so fast, Christians!

    Scholars are currently divided on this issue. No one can claim either side of this argument as fact. We might have two independent sources for these stories, but it is also possible that the core story came from just one source: the author of the Gospel of Mark. If the core details of the Jesus’ Passion Story came solely from the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark, whom the majority of scholars do not believe was an eyewitness or the associate of an eyewitness (ie., not John Mark), it is then possible that much or all of the Arrest scene, Trial scene, Crucifixion scene, and Resurrection scene are literary inventions, perfectly acceptable in Greco-Roman biographies!

    As long as the core story remained intact…that Jesus of Nazareth had been arrested by the Romans; tried and convicted of treason against Caesar; executed by crucifixion; buried in some manner; and shortly thereafter, his disciples believed that he appeared to them, in some fashion…the other details found in the Passion Narrative may be literary invention (fiction)!
    Think of that! It would certainly answer a lot of questions. Why does (the original) Resurrection Story in Mark have zero appearance stories? Why does the Gospel of Matthew, written a decade or so later, have appearances to the male disciples in Galilee, while the Gospel of Luke, also written a decade or so after Mark (whose author most scholars believe was not aware of Matthew’s gospel), has appearances only in Jerusalem and Judea? And why does the last Gospel written, John, have appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee as if the author had combined Matthew and Luke’s stories??? My, my, my. The evidence for a fantastical, never-heard-of-before-or-since Resurrection is much, much weaker than the average Christian layperson sitting in the pew on Sunday realizes!

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/many-scholars-now-believe-that-all-the-gospels-were-dependent-on-the-first-gospel-mark-the-evidence-for-the-resurrection-is-much-weaker-than-most-lay-christians-realize/

  14. IOllie J Gainey says:

    Even though it is not certain who wrote the book of John I am thankful for the scriptures written.

  15. jeb says:

    I read the Wikileaks site on John that claims the Gospels and Revelation were written by the same person or closely suggests such is true.
    Having read the Gospels numerous times I believe it is more likely that marginal Christians have collected fragments that may have been issued in a single volume and mistake that one book equals one author.
    Marginal Christians are always too quick to look for sameness in a fashion that is almost pantheistic to avoid any hint of confrontation as if our only purpose in believing in Jesus is to achieve “Peace” if they had read John and if you have you know to that which I refer. The Peace of Jesus is not the peace of the world.
    Luke is clearly written in a style (Yes I am able to read New Testament Greek but defer to scholars with a more profound ability and concur.) profoundly different than Luke as Matthew and Mark. Each has a distinct character that survives transalton.
    More often than not translation errors are a gift for those who have more imagination than faith.
    The diversity of the Gospels apparent conflicts in retelling their memories is more likely when eye witness testimony is given. The essentials are the same and the basic rule for establishing a dogma remains intact, the truth is given, Jesus was the Son of God understood in His time to mean he was the Messiah. That he was not accepted and did not establish an earthly kingdom has people as much confused today as it did then. John is testimony to faith based belief in the Divinity of Jesus the Christ.
    It is this truth Christians throughout the ages have been persecuted.

  16. Douglas Wilton says:

    Fr. Raymond Brown’s “The Community of the Beloved Disciple” offers a scholarly evaluation of the source, if not the specific authorship, of the Gospel and Epistles of John.

  17. Colin Broughton says:

    According to Richard Baukham in his book, ‘The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John’, the reason why the accounts of John and the Synoptics diverge is that he is not depicted as a Galilean disciple who followed Jesus about. He is rather most likely a resident of Jerusalem and reports events which occurred in the city and environs, events which were not known to the other disciples.

    Bauckham argues that John is the anonymous Beloved Disciple by drawing on a variety of sources including, importantly, literary analysis, of course, the Beloved Disciple appears in the Gospel narrative only as a character. This however allows the narrative to proceed without interruption and qualifies him as a witness and ideal author.

  18. JCE says:

    I would just like to say that posting a quote from a person with a Master’s or PHD is not evidence. What is your evidence? There are so many quotes above that a person searching for the truth(a true skeptic) would see right through. Instead several posters seem to just be trying to reinforce what they already believe. Might I remind you that people a lot closer in time to Jesus and the apostles explain much of who/what/why/when. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Eusebius. I would trust what they have to say over someone 2000 years using mainly linguistic evidence, any day of the week. Especially since, with the exception of Eusebius, the people above had nothing to gain but persecution for doing what they did. Sure, less than 1% of what is in editions such as the KJV and the NIV, don’t exist in Codex Sinaiticus, but if you remove the small amount of editions that have happened over the last 2000 years no fundamental teachings or beliefs are changed. Another poster said that most scholars agree that John Mark did not right Mark. ???? Are you serious? what is the evidence for that? Do they have someone from within that lifetime who says this? Do they have something listing characteristics of John Mark that disqualify him from righting Mark? Groundless speculation. Please look at all of the evidence as a whole. And do not just believe what PHD says. There are multitudes on the planet and they do not all agree, so look at the evidence, listen to what scholars have to say. But do not take their word as “Gospel”. Think for yourself. Don’t be a sheeple(sheep people) for someone who has ulterior motives either way. lol 😉

  19. Sue in Aqaba, Jordan says:

    Interesting and articulate article proposing Lazarus as the author of the Gospel of John: http://bibletruth.cc/DWYL.htm#The Disciple Whom Yeshua Loved

  20. Jo says:

    It’s generally understood by biblical scholars today that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not eyewitness accounts.

    Mark is the earliest of the gospels and there is pretty much consensus that it was written around 70 AD (earlier that the 300 AD Ryan seems so certain about). John was written around 93 AD, though the earliest found documents from John are from 125 AD. John himself died in 44 AD.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all anonymous. Most scholars no longer believe that Mark was John Mark the scribe of Peter. And it was very normal at the time for other scribes to write ‘in the style’ of someone famous who’s teachings they were interested in. It would not have been unusual for someone to write ‘as John would have written’ and then said that it was actually written by John. Today we would call that a forgery, but in those times it was pretty normal.

    There’s a good summary on the following page with more detailed references there: http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

  21. Minister ED HOLT. says:

    I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand that Jesus was not married. When if you believe and understand the bible from start to finish you should know as a child also understand as a child staying pure in your thoughts. Then you would understand that God would only accept a pure unblemished sacrifice. Now that being said if Jesus was married then he would not and could be a sacrifice pleasing to God. If people would tell the truth ? The first attribute of a woman wasn’t her wisdom, are even her spiritual desires and love for God. No it was her flesh. Her physical appearance. Paul even says it’s better to marry than to burn. Also Jesus said if you have lusted after a woman then you have already committed adultery. So tell the truth what was it that drew you to your wife? I already know
    ( sin. ) There for Jesus could not have been married.

  22. gary says:

    Watch the above five minute youtube video. In it, NT Wright, renowned NT scholar, admits that NO ONE knows who wrote the Gospels, where they were written, nor when they were written!

    Therefore, no one should believe the very improbable, 2,000 year old, tall tale that a three-day-dead guy walked out of his sealed tomb to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies and a few days later, flew off into outer space where he sits today on a golden throne, at the edge of the universe, as King of the Cosmos!

  23. John B says:

    The fourth gospel was written by Lazarus. Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved, as per John 11:3 “…Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.”

  24. Douglas Martin says:

    “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. ”
    I hope the authors don’t think that Jacob’s Well is in Jerusalem, since that seems to be the point they’re trying to make.

  25. gary says:

    Newsflash: The majority of New Testament scholars no longer believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. It’s not just my opinion, my Christian friends, it is the consensus of scholars.

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

  26. Michelle says:

    I am reading the BYNV Natsarim Version. This bible shows the true names. It says that many Hebrew scholars believe the one who Yahushua ( Jesus) loved is Lazarus (Alazar) who actually wrote John. Since the rulers were seeking to kill him because of (Jesus) it is possible that he used an alternative name to hide his true identity. The name John in Hebrew is Yahukanon.

  27. gary says:

    Are our pastors telling us the truth?

    Are Christian pastors honest with their congregations regarding the evidence for the Resurrection? Is there really a “mountain of evidence” for the Resurrection as our pastors claim or is the belief in the Resurrection based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay, superstitions, and giant leaps of faith?

    You MUST read this Christian pastor’s defense of the Resurrection and a review by one of his former parishioners, a man who lost his faith and is now a nonbeliever primarily due to the lack of good evidence for the Resurrection:

    —A Review of LCMS Pastor John Bombaro’s Defense of the Resurrection—

    (copy and paste this article title into your browser to find and read this fascinating review of the evidence for the Resurrection)

  28. John says:

    It amazes me but it should not because heresy was alive in the 1st century. The apostle Paul was struggling with this then when he wrote his letters re to the Galatians for example. The Enemy who is Satan seeks to confuse and deceive in order to keep us from the truth. Study the scriptures for yourselves and rely only those proven commentators and expositors that have survived the test of time. One of the greatest that was recorded is Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones. There are over 1600 sermons that were recorded at the Westminster Chapel in London in the 1950s and 60s. These have been digitally restored and our are available to listen and download @ MLJTRUST.org

  29. Robert says:

    Sorry Gary (of #1 Post above), the male gender of the author (who was an eyewitness) is revealed, in John 19:35; 21:24 “…his witness/testimony is true…”

  30. Dr.Gonzzo says:

    There is another thesis as to who wrote the gospel of John.

    All four gospels were written by the Romans themselves!

    The Dead Sea Scrolls would give you a clue. The 31 banned gospels form the Bible was not written by the Romans (with the collaboration of Josephus Flavius) which were all pro-Roman and anti-Jewish. Those four gospels were used as propaganda scriptures against the Jews in favor of the Romans.

    Some mind boggling information right here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE

  31. Gerald R. Collins says:

    The book of John is about a man called Jesus who at the baptism of the Lord An of the book of Matthew came the next day while Ani was a way in the wilderness fasting and praying to his father before being tested of Satan to see if he be the real son of God.
    The next day came the deceiver Jesus who was but a gentile Jew as pretender, Now to prove this from the book of John is impossible but if we take the account of Matthew and John at the same time we find we have two who are the son of God one real and the other is false, They co-exist for 2 years according to the book of John, On the last Jews’ Passover the false Jesus will be crucified on the day of Preparation and be buried according to the Jews custom by two men one a Jew and the other was Hebrew,
    At that hour when Jesus is buried the Lord is going into eat the Passover dinner on the 14th of the month. He too will b crucified and buried but Jesus of John is now in the grave for 24 hours. The moment that the Lord dies at three in the after noon there is a great earthquake and the living ones being righteous are aroused and made to stand up among the dead ones. They assemble and go into the city of Jerusalem are seen by many but the gentile Jesus is not seen among then for he is unrighteous and he will remain in the grave for 84 more hours until he is aroused on Sunday morning at sunrise, In the mean time the Lord is in the grave three days and three nights and he will rise with the second earthquake and angel from heaven but the gentile Jesus of John has 12 more hours in the grave until Sunday morning
    The Jesus of John is no more than a gentile Jew writing a story of a gentile Jew who was called the son of God but never approved by God the Father of the Hebrews. Everything in the book of John is about the gentile Jews for he never mentions the children of Israel those being Hebrews and he never warns of the coming wrath on the rejected seed of Satan who are assigned to hell from the foundation of the earth,
    Now if all this sounds strange take the book of Matthew begin with Baptism of “Ani the Lord by John the cousin of Ani, he is immediately led away to the wilderness, the next day came the deceiver Jesus and for the next forty days he lays out his evil and wicked plan of believing to the gentile Jews, He gives his evil and wicked manifesto to one lone gentile Jew in the middle of the night in John 3:15-16. The false messiah Jesus offered eternal life to those perishing but the sons of God of the book of Matthew were never perishing for there was prepared for them a place before the foundation of the earth. Only the evil and wicked gentiles all go to hell as they were assigned before the earth was formed.
    The gentile deceiver Jesus made a way for all gentile to be saved by believing in the false messiah Jesus,
    Ani the Lord came for his divorced wife and her children, He had to die to annul the first marriage vows that he could remarry his wife. Ani then became the price to buy back the wife and the children from the one who possessed them, It was purely a financial transaction for those redeemed take no part in the act of redeeming and nothing is required of them, Only the evil and wicked gentiles have to believe in the false Jesus to be saved from nothing the wrath of God still awaits them when they die,

  32. george says:

    i,m looking for the book of john with the commentary can u help me thanks george

  33. zulu says:

    the gospel of john was written by john because it is he who was everywhere jesus went

  34. EdwardTBabinski says:

    REASONS SCHOLARS FIND JOHN THE MOST QUESTIONABLE GOSPEL http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/biblical-scholars-including-those-who.html

  35. Ryan says:

    There are some REALLY ignorant people in the world. Yes, Matthew, Mark and Luke are “spurious writings,” and do not date back before 300ad, which is the same time period that the Gnostics (Christians) were inventing their false writings. John is an eyewitness account of the Apostle John (Mary was never an apostle, and women were forbidden to teach). The Gospel of John dates back to the first century, and gives exact geological/geographical locations, that the other three do not, because the other three are written by someone that has no knowledge of Israel, Yahshua, or the sacrifices, or the actual events.

  36. mikeb says:

    Several hypotheses have attempted to explain why so much of Jesus’ life not portrayed in the Synoptics is present in John and vice versa.

    Why is so much of southern U.S. culture portrayed in Faulkner not present in Harper Lee?

    Because the writers wrote about what they felt like writing about, and didn’t write about what they didn’t feel like writing about. Duh.

    Pick any handful of biographies of, say, Abraham Lincoln. Or any figure. The tone, style, perspective, focus, choice of anecdotes, etc., will vary from biographer to biographer.

    And the ultimate author of the Gospels, God, might tell us one day to walk over the hill to town. He might spend the next day telling us about town. He might spend the third day giving practical logistical advice for the journey. On the fourth he might describe the people of town and their physical needs, while on the fifth brief us on the spiritual connection of traveling by foot and evangelizing door-to-door.

    Personally, I’ve never noticed much difference between John and the so-called synoptics, or between any gospel and any other gospel.

  37. Baptismal Site “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” Added to UNESCO World Heritage List | Laodicean Report says:

    […] understood “beyond” the river to mean west of the river—though for the original writer of the Gospel of John, “beyond” the Jordan clearly meant east of the Jordan […]

  38. Maung says:

    It is very clear if you read in John 21:20-25 . It’s Apostle John . The author identified himself who he was in John 21:24

  39. feke get says:

    a like the idea that charles says. Bcoz we should b concern about the matter of life& truth not who rowte.

  40. Charles says:

    God is not the author of confusion, it is a manipulative tool used by “Satan” (Lucifer) to distract from the truth that is God. When you really think about it, does it really matter who wrote what… it’s all about the truth, loving and caring about, and for, each other. Why should we concern ourselves about chronological/geographical disagreement as long as the essence
    ( there is a consensus) of the word remains in tact.

  41. Aaron says:

    The gospel of John was written by a ressurected Judas Iscariot. Jesus supernaturally caused Judas to betray Him, to fulfill the prophesy in Scripture. The story of Lazarus foreshadows this.

  42. Wendy says:

    @Paul- I agree, what you wrote is directed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was showing His appreciation because John loved what He loved which resulted in their close relationship. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned 1 Cor 2: 13,14

  43. Paul says:

    The Gospel of John was written by John. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all 4 thrived during Jesus’ life, ministry, death, resurrection and beyond. He descipled all four regularly, although neither Mark nor Luke were one of the first 12 apostles named by Jesus. Mark was probably John Mark (Acts 12) Luke was both a physician and a historian, to whom the book of Acts is attributed. All four were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ minisrty, but only John mentioned being so. I believe That the Gospel according to John was written by John, the brother of James (son of Zebedee.) He was the apostle John which penned the Revelation and also wrote 1st 2nd and 3rd John. The stories of the four Gospel writers vary, but only in chronology and perhaps in their inclusions. They do not vary in essence. All four men commenced their written account a number of years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Matthew, John Mark, and Luke collaborated frequently, resulting in their stories being synchronized. John (Zebedee) also collaborated with them, but gave less regard to exact chronology and higher regard to details of certain events as they relate to God’s unlimited love. Jesus exuded the love of God profusely, without measure. (John 13:1) He loved all12 apostles, but John paid more attention to his love, while the others paid more attention to the events. Some had said that Jesus loved John because John was his natural brother. He was not. He was a son of Zebedee. The account in John 19:26 does not indicate that John is Jesus’ brother, but rather, that Jesus was ‘asigning’ to John the task of brother, to comfort and care for his mother. There is also spiritual significance; he was telling his own mother to now look to his ministry for guidence.
    ‘Leaning-on-Jesus-bosom’ is figure of speech. It means John was ‘in tune’ with everything Jesus said. John inclined his own heart towards what Jesus loved. John 13:23; John 19:26; and John 21:7, 20 are translated incorrectly. The correct translation is the disciple who “loved what Jesus loved”. Many people, probably hundreds or even thousands were writing on parchment quickly and simultaneously as orations were presented by prophets, by Jesus and by the apostles. Hundreds or thousands of people also hand copied letters and eye-witness accounts that were written by the apostles. In many cases, the oldest surviving copies that could be found had been hand written 10 to 50 years after the first writings. Many of those were not discovered until two to three hundred years after they were written. scientific dating alone for the generating of the documents is not sufficient to determine when the original writing was first orated or penned. The accounts, (both verbal and written) of reliable historians must also be considered. therefore the oldest discernible writings of any of the Apostles won’t date back to the time of that apostle because those copies ceased to exist. However, other historical accounts will help verify who the original author was.
    Many ‘God-haters’ have cited the scientific dating of certain apostolic copies as a tactic in an attempt to discount and devalue the validity of the Holy Bible. they have also attempted to add certain ancient accounts by claiming they were written by various apostles even though their claim is not supported by either scientific dating or other historical records. The Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Thomas are two such examples. It behooves every true believer in the Word of God to be mindful of these attacks against God’s Word.

  44. Ryan says:

    @Steve, yes spurious for the fact that a lot of the scriptural context of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quite contrary to Johns testimony. Many theologians have claimed that the three did not write from first-hand accounts, but copied from another text, which is why the geographic details are confused, the parables are not in agreement, and the “resurrection account” of Johns, states that the disciples were in a boat, when Yahshua met them prior to His ascension. Not found in the other three.

  45. gethsir says:

    But there is a verse in john:21:24 , like John himself wrote the Gospel of John.. I wanna get clarify with this..

  46. Stephen Raj says:

    I agree this author is sounding like some CNN host who knows nothing more than superficial media hear-say.

    Of all the places, is this where you try to mention the untrue “controversies” between the gospels. One quick search on the topic online would help you clarify all those doubts and yet such lethargic unscholarly attitude.

    At least not expected from someone authorized to write on this website with that name for Christ’s sakes.

  47. Stephen Raj says:

    @Ryan ..the other three were spurious?

  48. Pieter Rousseau says:

    Internal evidence on probable author identity outweighs external/tradional and ‘John’s’ gospel itself discloses clearly who the beloved disciple was and hence the author of the Fourth Gospel. And it is definitely not ‘John’.

  49. Ryan says:

    What I would like to know is, what book the author of this essay is reading?
    1. Yahshua was taken to prison Passover night (as He broke bread).
    2. He was hung on a tree a High Shabbat (Wednesday).
    3. He resurrected on a Sabbaton (Sabbath) before dawn.
    4. John’s account was written by John, the other three are spurious writings of the third century ad.

    Anyone with any brain can figure this one out.

  50. Damian says:

    My biggest question is ,How come there are no writings by Jesus himself ???

  51. Gary Knighton says:

    I remain a firm believer that it was Mary Madgalene who wrote the gospel of John. Christ loved her the most, and in this gospel it is referred to as written by the one whom Jesus loved. This is an amazing first hand account.

  52. Style of Life - Rumors of AngelsRumors of Angels says:

    […] mention this matter of style because John’s Gospel, part of which we read for the New Testament lesson this morning, seems to indicate that something […]

  53. Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? – Biblical Archaeology Society | St. John One: One says:

    […] Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? – Biblical Archa…. […]

  54. garyI says:

    I find reading these statements that there are some very studied people. But
    There are some who are just plain stupid.I’d rather have faith in the Bible than
    believe that everything in this universe came from a big bang .Let’s say I’m wrong and we just die and that’s it.What have I lost by believing in Gods word
    Nothing.But for you that don’t believe if your wrong all you have to look foreword to is a lake of fire and eternal torment.

  55. LA “EXTRAÑA” FINALIZACIÓN DEL EVANGELIO DE MARCOS Y POR QUÉ HACE TODA LA DIFERENCIA | EL BLOG DEL APOLOGISTA CRISTIANO/ INGº. MARIO OLCESE SANGUINETI (LIMA/PERÚ) says:

    […] Más sobre los autores de los Evangelios? Echa un vistazo a la historia bíblica de post diario “Evangelio de Juan Comentario: ¿Quién escribió el evangelio de Juan y Cómo histórico is I… […]

  56. Brenda says:

    It makes a lot of sense that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John. Listen to the message in the following link.
    http://columbusbiblechurch.org/index.php/audio-sp-727/sermon/10319-authorship-of-john

  57. Good Friday, or Good WEDNESDAY? | When is Jesus Coming Back? says:

    […] He Died – And Does It Matter“Sabbaths, New Moons, and Appointed Feasts….”Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It .a3a5_box {font-size: 14px !important;font-style: normal !important;font-weight: normal […]

  58. Kurt says:

    Writership. Though the book does not name its writer, it has been almost universally acknowledged that it was written by the hand of the apostle John. From the beginning, his writership was not challenged, except by a small group in the second century who objected on the ground that they considered the book’s teachings unorthodox, but not because of any evidence concerning writership. Only since the advent of modern “critical” scholarship has John’s writership been challenged anew.
    The internal evidence that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, was indeed the writer consists of such an abundance of proofs from various viewpoints that it overwhelms any arguments to the contrary. Only a very limited number of points are mentioned here, but the alert reader, with these in mind, will find a great many more. A few are:
    (1) The writer of the book was evidently a Jew, as is indicated by his familiarity with Jewish opinions.—Joh 1:21; 6:14; 7:40; 12:34.
    (2) He was a native dweller in the land of Palestine, as is indicated by his thorough acquaintance with the country. The details mentioned concerning places named indicate personal knowledge of them. He referred to “Bethany across the Jordan” (Joh 1:28) and ‘Bethany near Jerusalem.’ (11:18) He wrote that there was a garden at the place where Christ was impaled and a new memorial tomb in it (19:41), that Jesus “spoke in the treasury as he was teaching in the temple” (8:20), and that “it was wintertime, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Solomon” (10:22, 23).
    (3) The writer’s own testimony and the factual evidence show that he was an eyewitness. He names individuals who said or did certain things (Joh 1:40; 6:5, 7; 12:21; 14:5, 8, 22; 18:10); he is detailed about the times of events (4:6, 52; 6:16; 13:30; 18:28; 19:14; 20:1; 21:4); he factually designates numbers in his descriptions, doing so unostentatiously.—1:35; 2:6; 4:18; 5:5; 6:9, 19; 19:23; 21:8, 11.
    (4) The writer was an apostle. No one but an apostle could have been eyewitness to so many events associated with Jesus’ ministry; also his intimate knowledge of Jesus’ mind, feelings, and reasons for certain actions reveals that he was one of the party of 12 who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry. For example, he tells us that Jesus asked Philip a question to test him, “for he himself knew what he was about to do.” (Joh 6:5, 6) Jesus knew “in himself that his disciples were murmuring.” (6:61) He knew “all the things coming upon him.” (18:4) He “groaned in the spirit and became troubled.” (11:33; compare 13:21; 2:24; 4:1, 2; 6:15; 7:1.) The writer was also familiar with the apostles’ thoughts and impressions, some of which were wrong and were corrected later.—2:21, 22; 11:13; 12:16; 13:28; 20:9; 21:4.
    (5) Additionally, the writer is spoken of as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.” (Joh 21:20, 24) He was evidently one of the three most intimate apostles that Jesus kept nearest to him on several occasions, such as the transfiguration (Mr 9:2) and the time of his anguish in the garden of Gethsemane. (Mt 26:36, 37) Of these three apostles, James is eliminated as the writer because of his being put to death about 44 C.E. by Herod Agrippa I. There is no evidence whatsoever for such an early date for the writing of this Gospel. Peter is ruled out by having his name mentioned alongside “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20, 21.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273143

  59. Don Carson says:

    Great article and comments. I am about to begin a study of The Book of John, and this is the first site that appeared when I googled “who wrote the book of john.” What I read herein is naturally biased on account of it’s focus on history and archeology, and the factual truth. So, I am not surprised that there is no mention of “faith.” Just sayin’, brings to mind a quote attributed to the dramatist, wit, and professor, Oscar Wilde: “Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.”

  60. Don Carson says:

    Wow! I am about to participate in a study of The Book of John, and this is the first site that appeared when I googled “who wrote the book of john”. Great stuff,, and understandably biased on account of this site is about history and archeology and factual truth. So, I’m not surprised to have read nothing in the article or in the comments about “faith.” Just sayin’, the content herein brings to mind a quote attributed to the dramatist, wit, and professor, Oscar Wilde:
    “Education is an admirable thing, But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.”

  61. lytefm says:

    The Gospel of John was written by Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus loved.

  62. GİZEM AKA says:

    Just a humble comment. We know that John the disciple was the only one among 12 who died because of old age (102~) around the beginning of the 2nd C AD. It is said that he was exhiled to Patmos where he had the revelations came back to Ephesus and died there right after he had written the gospel. Today there are the ruins of a massive church over his grave and recognized by Vatican. So it is possible that the gospel might have been written by him. By the way I am a tour guide in the region, professional on biblical tours and this page is a great source for biblical history. Thanks a lot.

  63. Manuel says:

    It is very simple… & John was named. He was the “Disciple That Jesus Loved”. Jesus Love was his identity. Jesus Love was more important than himself. Why is that so difficult for most to see… It is as Jesus said, “There is no love of God in your hearts”.

  64. Prayer and Meditation for Tuesday, July 22, 2014 — Mary Magdalen “Started Wrong But Finished Strong” | Peace and Freedom says:

    […] her as an apostle, noting her as the “apostle to the apostles,” based on the account of the Gospel of John which has Jesus calling her by name and telling her to give the news of his resurrection to the […]

  65. Lin says:

    Sorry my english:

    If this isn’t the Passover in John how do you explain the fact that Judas went out like he did in the other gospels? And after the meal they went out in a garden, possibly the Mount of Olives.

    I have read the hypothesis about Lazarus being the author/beloved disciple and though it seems plausible, at the same time I have some doubts, like the fact he was nominated when they’re having a meal in his house. If he was the beloved why don’t say something like “Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while a disciple, whom Jesus loved, was among those reclining at the table with him.” instead of “Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him.” John 12:2

    Or the fact that the Beloved Disciple was among those in Peter’s boat when they saw Jesus on the shore, cooking breakfast. Unless Lazarus was just accompanying them, it seems the beloved disciple is a fisherman like them.

    With John there’s the problem he was hidden with the other disciples so he couldn’t be at the cross with the other women.

    Other thing that I thought, how can we know that the “other disciple” and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” are the same? Because sometimes the “other disciple” is a sentence alone, without “whom Jesus loved”.

    Whether the beloved was Lazarus, John,etc, does it matters this much to the Catholic Church? If one day a strong evidence proves the tradiction wrong, what issues could it bring?

    Surely the Apostle John is important enough, even if he’s not the beloved he belongs to the inner circle of Jesus with Peter and James. He witnessed important miracles like the Transfiguration and the raising of Jairu’s daughter with them.

  66. Andrew says:

    Since it was common practice for even educated, literate people to employ a scribe to pen letters and testimony – there were no ball point pens, typewriters or laptops and a first century author could no more pen a legible manuscript longhand than most literate people could today – it is absurd to say a Jew from galilee could not have written John’s gospel. Furthermore it is inaccurate to portray the disciples as illiterate working class men. They were not. Matthew you should remember was a tax collector, and a wealthy man. Peter, James and John were not merely fishermen, but shipowners and partners in a fishing business. Jesus himself, by trade a building contractor (or tekhnos, not a cabinet maker as he is often popularly portrayed), was expected to be able to read from the Torah at a local synagogue, as would most Jewish men. 1st century galilee was multilingual, having been occupied for hundreds of years by first Greek-speaking Macedonian forces and at the time roman troops. Some disciples even from the beginning had Greek names (such as Andrew), others such as Peter were widely known by Greek sobriquets. If anything 1st century Jews were more likely to speak fluent Greek and only have a rote familiarity with Hebrew (only recognising certain ritual phrases and recitations).

  67. Alethea Loree says:

    From E. W. Bullinger behold your God (Isaiah 40:9). The Devine purpose in the Gospel of John is to present The Lord Jesus as God. This is the one great feature which constitutes the difference between the other three. It has been noted in the first three The Lord Jesus is presented as Israel’s King (Matthew the Hebrew mind) Jehovah’s Servant (Mark for the Roman mind), and the ideal Man (Luke for the Greek mind). And that those incidents, words, and works are selected, in each Gospel, which specially accord with such presentation. Thus, they present The Lord on the side of His perfect humanity. It is this that links them together and is the real reason for their being called “Synoptic” and for the marked difference between them, taken together, and the fourth Gospel.

  68. Charles says:

    The famous Mgr Alfred Gilbey, a former Catholic chaplain at Cambridge, told me during his 90th birthday year his take on John.

    He said that, when studying for ordination, the fashion at the time, say the 1920s, was to downplay John as being the reflective meditations of an old man and not very historical as he would be too old and forgetful.

    On the contrary, said Mgr Gilbey, as a 90 yeast old I can tell you quite clearly who came to my 9th birthday party and what we ate and drank. I have no idea who I sat next to at dinner last night, let alone what we ate.

  69. Dmitry says:

    The Gospel of John is undoubtedly of late second century CE origin. It is just as pagan in its nature as the rest of the Greek-speaking New Testament !

    First off, it opens its account with an ancient Greco-Roman philosophical idea of LOGOS, unknown and foreign to the very spirit of the Hebrew thought and Jewish Scriptures! The Greek thinker Heraclitus (ca 535 – 475 BCE) was among the first pagans to have used the term in his philosophical discourses: “ . . . This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it . . .”

    The ancient Greek cult of Hermes, with its origins dating back to the 7th century BCE, made use of the Logos concept to express ideas strikingly similar to those found in John’s Gospel. Here is a short excerpt from the cult of Hermes: “The [Poimandres] writer fell into a deep and heavy trance, in which there appeared to him a being who introduced himself as Poimandres (Shepherd of Men), “the Mind of Authority.” Poimandres then shows the mystic a vision, in which he sees a great light and a great darkness, respectively reality and matter. From the light comes “a Holy Logos,” …the “shining Son of God,” who proceeds from Mind itself…”

    See a more detailed discussion of these issues at: http://www.therockofisrael.org/index.cfm?i=15533&mid=4&ministryid=28705

    Also, passages such as John 7:38, for example, show that the writer of the Gospel was unversed in the Hebrew Bible and did not care that the “textual evidence” that he was adducing for his readers did not really exist in the Holy Hebrew Text!

    There are many other clues within the text itself that show it to be yet another example of the Church’s frantic attempt at creating an entirely new religion suitable to the needs of the Roman Empire!

  70. KB says:

    Theologian Carsten Theide indictation is that it was written before 70 AD, because (John 5:2) the pool of Bethesda still existed when it was written. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD it no longer remained. Archaeologist excavation has unearthed this site.
    http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/ has put forth a compelling hypotheses that Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and is thus the author of the Gospel.

  71. james says:

    stick to archeology, and this will be a much better sight, and from the comments, most of you would be better served to harken to the gospel before commenting. You have eyes but see not, and you have ears but hear not. I’m sure your nose hit the air about now, but the truth is you can second guess all you want, but once your eyes are opened the internal evidence to answer all the things you are arguing is more than sufficient.

  72. Wardell says:

    John’s Gospel is the historic Gospel. The Last Supper was not a Passover Meal (Seder). and Jesus was crucified on Friday Afternoon, the first Day.

    John’s Gospel has a secret, the disciple “who Jesus loved” is Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s son. This is the son found in The Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:;2; 21:7,20

  73. Ken says:

    It’s a bit disconcerting that the anonymous author seems to equate level of detail with level of accuracy. In some cases, like the Pool of Bethesda, the accuracy of John’s details can be checked, but in others we don’t have anything to check John’s claims against. The author also seems to suggest that Jacob’s Well (which John 4.5-6 places in Sychar in Samaria) is in Jerusalem.

  74. ingrid says:

    does anyone notice that this author uses our gentile system talking about 4 p.m. in the afternoon, etc when a hebrew would use the 10th hour in a day etc? this really makes him a person more adapt to the roman, hellenistic world than anyone raised in the jewish manner

  75. ingrid says:

    i am amazed that nobody ever notices there is no such thing as 72 hours or 3 days in between the burial and the resurrection, friday eve and sunday morning… ANY MATH MAJORS HERE???? the christian version of christ’s passion. and yet jesus himself mentions it in scripture as did jonah in prophecy! if you follow scripture though you might toss out your gregorian calendar and follow the hebrew kind TO INCLUDE THE FACT THE HEBREW DAY STARTS AT TWILIGHT IN THE EVENING.. scriputre talks about 2 sabbaths, the High Sabbath or ANNUAL passover, and the regular saturday sabbath WHICH STARTS FRIDAY EVENING. now following the timeline of the passion then you will realize passover fell on a thursday (wedensday eve to thursday eve) that year and so christ was crucified and buried before sundown on wednesday shortly before twilight when the seder took place. the holy day was strictly enforced, ergo no work or business whatsoever! then friday, as per scripture, the women went out to buy ointments for jesus to take to the grave after the regular sabbath, early morning sunday. meanwhile though, counting 72 hours from the approximate burial after the 3 o”clock death on the cross, say around 5 p.m. wednesday brings you to 5 pm saturday, ergo christ rose as the sabbath went out before twilight. AND NOT YOUR PAGAN EASTER SUNDAY! check the kahluach for the year when passover fell on a thursday! and all falls in place!

  76. Pieter Rousseau says:

    The handed down authorship of the Fourth Gospel rests entirely on tradition/external ‘evidence’. The strongest proof of who an author of a biblical document is stands on the internal evidence – what the document itself divulges. As regards the author of the Fourth Gospel itself – and it is not the son of Zebedee – the internal evidence points irrefutably to the most unlikely person, the only male disciple that was present at the cross, to whom the care of Jesus’ mother was entrusted and who witnessed what took place there, who knew precisely what the nature and the extent of Jesus’ marks of crucifixion were. When he refused to believe unless he saw those marks, the church has branded him a doubter and for two millenia his name has become synomynous with unbelief. Read the Scripture in context and discover for yourself.

  77. Linda Campbell says:

    The book of John showed how the Messiah fulfilled all the Feasts of the Lord in which we are commanded to observe. John 6:4 was not in the earliest known manuscripts. When putting together the NT they took what there was the most of. John 6:4 says it was Passover yet all the men including Pharisees were up in Gallilee instead of being in Jerusalem. That would not happen. 2nd. When Messiah ate the Passover meal as it was called, He said I wish I could have eaten this with you. So it was not Passover (the bread was artos………leavened bread). Messiah was explaining that when they took the Unleavened Bread all those centuries of celebrating it that it was about Him. The bread that is pierced and has stripes on it. The wine represented the blood He would spill. He only taught one year, or the book of Daniel is a lie, and so is the rest of the Word. It was written several times that the Passover Lamb had to be a lamb of the FIRST year, without spot or blemish. Everyone was multilingual at that time. Especially the Jews. They spoke Aramaic and of course Hebrew. The scrolls were written in Hebrew. They were taught out of the scrolls. And historians saying there was illiteracy among them? How do they know this?? The teaching that they only spoke Aramaic is a fallacy. If you want someone to know what our Father wants then have them start in Genesis and then when you get to the letters in the NT one can understand what they are talking about. Eusebius said that Matthew wrote the logos in the Hebrew language and each interpreted it the best he could. The Greeks did apparently have a problem interpreting Hebrew into Greek because they did not know the Hebraisms. Nor did they know what was written before. And this Friday Passover cannot work either. Messiah was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. So He had to be in the grave by sundown Wednesday to arise on the Sabbath Day, which by the way GOD never changed. He was already arisen before daylight on sunday morning, and no one knows how many hours He had been up.

  78. Deborah says:

    It is unfamiliarity with the Mosaic Law and 2nd Temple practice that causes so many to mistakenly assume that John’s Gospel contradicts the Synoptics. Several points:
    1. There was no preparation day for feasts – According to the Law (Exodus 12:16) that servile work which was necessary to prepare the feast (carrying wood, lighting a fire, cooking, carrying food, carrying water, washing dishes, etc.), even on the 1st and 7th days which were festival sabbaths, was allowed to be done that day so that everyone could eat the feast. There was no need for a “preparation day” for festivals, not even festival sabbaths which were not as strict in the no-work laws as the weekly sabbath.
    2. The only day on which absolutely no work could be done and preparations had to be made the day before was the weekly Sabbath, even if it fell on a feast day. Thus, the regular weekly Sabbath, when it fell on a feast day, was doubly holy (a “High Sabbath”) and the laws and injunctions for the weekly sabbath overrode those for the festivals sabbaths. Therefore, the preparations for any feast that fell on Saturday had to be made on Friday. And from historical records, the only day which was ever called “the preparation” was Friday, testified to by Josephus (Antiquities, Book 16, Chapter 6, line 163). So when John speaks of the preparation “of” the Passover, not the preparation “for” the Passover, he is referring to the Preparation (Friday) that fell during Passover week, and every year one day of the week-long feast would fall on the weekly Sabbath.
    3. The lambs slain on the afternoon of Nisan 14 were not the only Passover sacrifices. All the sacrifices and offerings, both those required by Law as well as those offered voluntarily, were referred to as Passover sacrifices, even in the Scripture itself (See Deut 16:1-3 and 2 Chron 35:7-9 for example). Thus when John spoke of the Pharisees contracting Levitical defilement which would exclude them from eating the Passover, he wasn’t referring to the Passover lambs sacrificed on Nisan 14, but John was referring to the 2nd Passover Chagigah (peace-offering) sacrificed on Nisan 15 and which was eaten at the 2nd feast of Passover. This peace-offering was required by Law and had the Pharisees contracted defilement they would be excluded form eating it.
    Commenting on 2nd Temple Jewish practice mentioned in the Gospels without consulting 2nd Temple Jewish law and historical practice leads to unnecessary difficulties.

  79. Jean Duhon says:

    Appendix #156 of Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s THE COMPANION BIBLE is titled “Six Days Before The Passover.” It is helpful in (1) understanding the last week of our Lord’s life on earth; (2) fix the day of His crucifixion; and (3) to ascertain the duration of the time He remained in the tomb.
    #156 appendix
    http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append156.html

  80. Jacques says:

    This is a replay to “Bob says”:Trying to find biblical truth is down right impossible…

    The reason for there being a tree of “knowledge of good an evil” is this; as we are beings of “Free Will”, we could not have been in the garden and had free will if there had not been a “choice factor” the tree.

  81. Who wrote the Gospel of John | Thinking Faith | The Gathering » Boise Church | Thinking Faith | The Gathering says:

    […]  To continue reading click here… Related Posts 4 Feb […]

  82. john says:

    John’s Gospel probably had two sources but only one major contributor, the eyewitness, unnamed to protect his identity from the Jews.
    Criminal forensics (taking the entire context of Jesus’s Greco-Roman world in Judea and Israel plus the Synoptics) strongly indicates that NONE of the Apostles witnessed the Crucifixion.
    I posit Lazarus/’Eleazar’/the son of a rich man/brother of Martha & Mary, to be the author & eyewitness. He is possibly a relative/close family of Jesus with access to the Sanhedrin and Pilate because he is related to Nicodemus/Simon the Leper (the POTTER – in the Peshitta) or Joseph of Arimathea. Why? Because kosher laws prevent a Jew from coming close to the dead (Jesus from the cross) on Passover, no less, UNLESS they are immediate FAMILY.
    If you apply this analysis, many contradictions disappear from the Gospels.

  83. TJ says:

    Pray for discernment, seek the truth beyond science and history, allow the LORD to speak to you, meditate on the Word of God and accept that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior Forever

  84. Richard Sutherland says:

    John’s essay (it becomes a gospel three centuries later) is clearly the Gentile stamp on Jesus’ mission to earth, as defined by Paul. By the time John is written, the Pauline interpretation of Jesus as the Christ, through whom one’s soul can be saved only if one believes that Jesus was the Son of God, is set. Compare John with James, who voices more closely Jesus’ teachings and not Paul’s. Paul claims to have been infused with his knowledge about Jesus before Paul’s own birth. And now a billion people believe his version of events? Pretty remarkable.

  85. Russell says:

    Who wrote the Gospel of John is a question like who is buried in a Grants tomb. Now do you know who wrote the Gospel of John? And you know who was buried in a Grants tomb without questioning. So whose at the head of Christ’s church? Bet you get stumped on that one.

  86. Lloyd G Cook says:

    Can you remove my comment because john th apostle was speaking about john the bapthis
    LG Cook

  87. Lloyd G Cook says:

    Can you remove my commnt because john the apostle was speaking about john the bapthis

  88. Lloyd G Cook says:

    In chapter one verse six it says “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” and goe from there like
    Someone else is telling the story. If I was telling my own story I wouldn’t tell it in that nature if it was about me
    Could someone else have wrote the book?
    LG Cook Oct. 28, 2013

  89. Friendship Friday | Say WORD! says:

    […] a friend that would lay down their life for me or have my best interest at heart at All times.   Who wrote the book of John?   Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleLike this:Like Loading… This entry was posted in scripture […]

  90. Bill says:

    “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.”

    This seems a non sequitur. Why does writing a “spiritual” gospel preclude historic events? Why would it mean the author never knew Jesus?

  91. Toby Lohr says:

    Hi…

    […]a great and a incredibly newsworthy history i’m so delighted when i[…]…

  92. Bob says:

    Years ago I took a college course that went into facts regarding the New Testament. The professor pointed out that there had been countless changes (300,000 ) to the New Testament and each change took it further from the truth. The professor also checked events that were reliably recorded at the time of the event by Roman,Greek and Hebrew writers. He came to the conclusion none of the authors was witness to the actual events. In fact he was sure that John was written much later by a person who was influenced by Roman anti semitism and was not Jewish. John has numerous derogitory statements regarding Jews that don’t fit the customs of the times. He said Roman rulers at the time would kill their mothers and certainly wouldn’t ask a crowd what to do, because it would make them look weak to their men. The professor checked the recorded birth and death of well known Roman Emperors and events such as paying taxes or taking a census and said that when they mention a specific person like Caesar Augustus, things don’t ring true regarding dates and other facts mentioned. He said the famous painting of the Last Supper was an example of misinformation. The artist is allegedy painting the Passover meal and places loves of bread on the table instead of flat unleavened bread. What is the difference and does all this matter? I don’t think so. There are over 5000 Protestant denominations in the United States and numerous other beliefs. Since no one has ever come back from the dead during the past million years that man has been on the earth, we don’t really know what happens when you die. However, we do know that religion has caused more deaths than almost any other belief.

  93. Rev Peter Robinson says:

    Any assessment of the relationship between John and the synoptics that doesn’t grapple with JAT Robinson’s Bampton Lectures published in the early 1980s as The Priority of John is really not worth wasting time with. Robinson developed much of CH Dodd’s work on the Fourth Gospel. The most raw specific early material about Jerusalem is found in John. Robinson identifies five redactions in the book, all by the same hand. Taken with his Redating the New Testament (1978) we have in John the earliest written material of any gospel (as early as 42AD) and like the remainder of the New Testament, completed before 70AD, given there is no evidence any NT writer has any knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem in that year which was a cataclysmic event for Jews and from which Jewish Christians fled ahead of time. Despite being a liberal theologian (Honest to God, 1964) Robinson’s work is very much in the classical scholarship tradition of Westcott, Lightfoot and Hort (and his uncle Armitage Robinson) which is as rigorous as anything available on historical veracity.

  94. E.Griffiths says:

    I believe John was written about 30 years after the destruction of the Temple and shows the effect of Pauline Christianity. This is particularly evident in the emphasis of Christ being a part of the Godhead, and His existence as part of God at the time of the creation. John shows the evolution of Christian belief.

  95. Robin says:

    Some interesting remarks here. I learned some things from various comments, and that’s a good thing.

    I also learned that someone who says one thing in one book and another thing elsewhere is a “top class Biblical scholar”–per comment #11. Would not say so.

  96. Sara M. Barnacle says:

    Did none of you read the well-thought -out analysis of the identity of the “beloved disciple” published in this publication or its forerunner, Bible Review, a few years back, researched and written by Ben Witherington? I found his observations, reasoning, and tentative conclusion fully convincing that the identity of the beloved was most likely Lazarus. I have since taken this theory further and found more and more evidence that satisfies both the “facts” and the “truth” of the gospel of “John.”

  97. WHO WAS JOHN THE EVANGELIST? | Pastor Greenbean Blog says:

    […] read nice little article on the Gospel of John this morning on the website of Biblical Archaeology Review (my favorite magazine, but I missed a month because of the move–drats!) that roots around at […]

  98. Gary says:

    The Book of John is wonderful and powerful for all new converts. At my conversion in 1978, the preacher’s sermon was on the resurrection from John’s Gospel. Since then, when I share the Gospel, and someone is very interested in knowing Jesus, I’ll have them study John’s Gospel first and foremost, then I will break open Paul’s Epistles of Romans and Hebrews. Yes, my opinion on Hebrews is that when Paul was waiting for execution in the 20’ft hole in front of the Senate in Rome, that Apollos must have visited him there. Being bound, Paul could not write, but may have instructed Apollos to write as he orally communicated. Apollos then would insert his Alexandrian Greek in and out of the passage. Hope this helps someone.

  99. J.J. says:

    Regarding the authorship, notice carefully in John 21:24-25 that there are three very distinct people or groups of people mentioned:
    (1) the unidentified Beloved Disciple: “this is the disciple who testifies concerning these things” (3rd person reference)
    (2) the community of the Beloved Disciple… his church/followers/community (whatever you want to call them): “and *we* know his testimony is true” (1st person, plural = the community; also mentioned as “the brothers” in 21:23)
    (3) the actual author who put ink to papyrus: “*I* suppose the world itself” (1st person singular).

    The Beloved Disciple is the source for the Fourth Gospel, but *not* the author who put ink to papyrus. The author is a follower of the Beloved Disciple and is a separate person when you separate out the people mentioned in the last 2 verses of the book.

    So why does 21:24 indicate that the Beloved Disciple “wrote” these things? Well, in the same sense that Pilate “wrote” the inscription for Jesus’ cross (19:22). Did Pilate actually get a board and paint the inscription himself? Most assuredly not. One of the Romans did it, even though Pilate was the source of the inscription.

    Hope this is helpful.

  100. Josh Stoc. says:

    What everyone seams to neglect is that John is described as being a part of the lower classes, just as all of Jesus’s disciples were. Given that during that time and age at the best of times the literacy rate in the Roman empire was about 10%. The literacy rate of a rural Palestinian town is significantly lower, more like 3%, and these were people who could most likely only read. About 1-2% could effectively write legible Aramaic (the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken). Far fewer could compose such a well written account such as John. Plus only the rich, or their slaves who needed to know how to write for chores, could afford the education to read or write. This effectively makes it implausible to have John being the author. But this goes without saying that John, in theory, could have gotten enough money to learn advanced Greek (what the gospels were originally written in) and later in life decided to write a book… but it seams like a lot to believe on no positive evidence and an overwhelming amount against it.

    What is more probable is that an unnamed author living after Jesus died composed a gospel and it got circulating. A group found they enjoyed and accepted the teachings that it held and ascribed apostolic authority to the book in order to promote their own ends. Read Forged by top class Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman for a more precise and deep argument plus the citations for the info.

    This in no way degrades the meaning of John if you believe in it’s moral teachings, but know that there are good reasons to suggest it is not a product of John.

  101. Terry says:

    Looking at the accurate geographical references, the knowledge of Jerusalem, the knowledge of the temple festivals, the knowledge of what happened during Jesus´ trial, the knowledge of the content of late night discussions with Nicodemus (a member of the Jewish leadership who Jesus called a teacher, but who at first failed to understand, who as a Jewish leader, who would have been known to the Temple guards and who was present at Jesus´ trial, as was the beloved disciple in John), I would say that considering all of these coincidences, Nicodemus should be considered a good candidate for the identity of the beloved disciple and the origin of the original material used for the Gospel of John. The text itself states the material was redacted by a follower of the beloved disciple after his death. Any comments or objections on this possible identity for the ¨beloved disciple?”

    Any

    John even describes a rich young man coming to Jesus who goes away sadly, stating that Jesus saw him and loved him – like the beloved disciple. -Nicodemus appears to be rich, like the young man loved by Jesus. We don´t know if he was young or old. But He was a scholar, who probably had the background to write a theological Gospel, was present at Jesus´ trial, and at his crucifixion as was the beloved disciple.

  102. The Strange Ending Of The Gospel Of Mark And Why It Makes All The Difference | Hebrew Vision News says:

    […] Interested in the Gospels’ authors? Check out the Bible History Daily post Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? […]

  103. John Martin says:

    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

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


106 Responses

  1. RP says:

    I disagree with your assumption that passover was on Friday. There are 7 high sabbath’s in Jewish culture following the 7 Jewish feasts. Jesus needed to stay in the ground like jonah in the belly of the fish. He was probably killed on a Wednesday with the high sabbath of passover that night until Thursday night since Jewish days run evening to evening. Which means the women buy the spices to prepare the body on Friday and regular passover happening Friday night to Saturday night. Jesus probably rose from the dead late Saturday night and Mary discovered the empty tomb Sunday morning

  2. JaredMithrandir says:

    The Ministry is no 2 or three years in John, that is an error people make because they assume it’s all Chronological. I believe ever Passover mentioned in John is the Passover of 30 AD. And the second part of John 2 is explicitly about events that happened the same Passover season as the Crucifixion in the Synoptic accounts.

  3. William Hayward says:

    The Gospel was authored by John.

    – Written within his lifetime (i.e. in 1st century).
    – All titled manuscripts ascribe authorship to John.
    – The author was most likely a Palestinian Jew (based on his understanding & familiarity with Jewish customs, scripture, and the topography).
    – The author was an eye-witness and disciple (John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24, 1 John 1:1-3)
    The following attribute or connect the Gospel with an apostle/disciple/John:
    – Epistula Apostolorum (140-150)
    – Ptolemy (140-160)
    – Justin Martyr (150)
    – Theodotus (160-170)
    – Heracloen (170)
    – Muratorian Fragment (170)
    – Anti-Marcionite prologues to Luke (160-180)
    – and John (160-180?)
    – Celsus (177)
    – Irenaeus (180)
    – Theophilus of Antioch (181)
    – Clement of Alexandria (195)
    – Tertullian (207)
    – Hippolytus (200-210)
    – Origen (220-230)
    – Dionysius of Alexandria (247)
    – Cyprian (250)
    – Novation (250-257)
    etc.

  4. Believer says:

    Yes. John was sopposedly tied in to the temple and that’s how he was able to follow Jesus into the trial while Pete had to stay out in the courtyard. From what I understand, John Mark was the son of the wealthy widow who was hosting and supporting Christ. He was educated. He turned away from traveling with Paul and returned to Peter. The reason for he and Polycarp (John’s helper) to want to get the eye witness testimony in writing is twofold. One is that everybody was being hunted down and executed and the eyewitness testimony needed to be passed on before the original disciples did. Two is that there were people trying to pervert the facts of Christ’s mission and were misleading the church with lies for their own personal gain much like cult leaders of today. The disciples programmed with the Holy Spirit given them after Christ ascended were on a mission to GO and spread the word. They were DOING and going all over. Only when stopped by prison do you see letters and writings. If God could release the ability to suddenly speak in all languages to the disciples, he most certainly could have given them the ability to write. Scholars and professors have to publish. It is a requirement of tenure. They have to find an angle and it mostly involves their overly developed egos and their flawed reasoning, not the facts. Much less faith in the well preserved word of the One True God introduced to us through the Original Jewish race.

  5. Believer says:

    I think that verse is John 21:22 Sonja. It relates to Peters jealousy of John I think.

  6. Believer says:

    From what I understand, John Mark was the son of the wealthy widow who was hosting and supporting Christ. He was educated. He turned away from traveling with Paul and returned to Peter. The reason for he and Polycarp (John’s helper) to want to get the eye witness testimony in writing is twofold. One is that everybody was being hunted down and executed and the eyewitness testimony needed to be passed on before the original disciples did. Two is that there were people trying to pervert the facts of Christ’s mission and were misleading the church with lies for their own personal gain much like cult leaders of today. The disciples programmed with the Holy Spirit given them after Christ ascended were on a mission to GO and spread the word. They were DOING and going all over. Only when stopped by prison do you see letters and writings. If God could release the ability to suddenly speak in all languages to the disciples, he most certainly could have given them the ability to write. Scholars and professors have to publish. It is a requirement of tenure. They have to find an angle and it mostly involves their overly developed egos and their flawed reasoning, not the facts. Much less faith in the well preserved word of the One True God introduced to us through the Original Jewish race.

  7. Sonja Raela says:

    Does someone know where or to whom were the words addressed: “what is that to thee, follow thou me”? Some ascribe it to John, Chapter 20, verse 20, but I haven’t been able to verify this.
    Thank you.

  8. Stephen Myers says:

    You leap to so many unsupported conclusions in so few paragraphs, although clearly none of these are a leap of faith! It is unclear who the author of Mark was, true. But the majority of scholars consider him to have been either an eyewitness or an associate of eyewitnesses, as evidenced by the details in Mark that do not exist in the other Gospels. was he John Mark, Peter’s interpreter? Was he the young man who ran away naked at the arrest? It is also untrue that scholars consider that the author of Luke was unaware of Matthew’s Gospel, as the author of the Gospel himself states that he has made a thorough investigation of events, it is highly unlikely that he would have been unaware of a gospel that was widely in circulation amongst Jewish christians in Jerusalem.

    Even if the accounts were not eyewitness stories, they were written in living memory of events, and many eyewitnesses were available. The belief that these details were a “work of fiction” is not supported by the evidence, and not a belief held by any serious first century historian.

    Both Faith and scepticism should be based on evidence.

  9. bev says:

    To the person who finds the evidence for Christ’s apperance weak.

    Could it be that the Gospel authors whom reported who saw the risen Lord. and the location of the appearances of Christ after His rise from the dead, that they either had witnessed or had confindence in the reports of those who had? And left out any that they were not certain of?

    When asked to tell a lawyer activities a girl claiming to be unable to work again after a car accident, I gave examples of the activities that she had posted afterward that myself and husband both remembered seeing. If he did not recall seeing her horse back riding or bridge diving, I did not include it.

  10. John Montonye says:

    Just because there seem to be differences in the details between the books does not discredit the message of Jesus Christ. Consider that these books were written years after the crusifiction, some of them decades apart. Now consider your own memory of events in your own life, and how the details of those memories compare to those of your friends who shared in the same experiences. Generally, the stories are the same, but often, the details don’t match.

  11. Diehl Ackerman says:

    I am still looking for someone who will provide me with an alternative scenario to the resurrection which would explain the actions of first century Christians who were willing martyrs or would be martyrs.

  12. Connie Condra says:

    Matthew’s gospel says that the last meal Yeshua shared with His disciples was the day after Passover. Passover is a single day. The next seven days are called “The Feast of Unleavened Bread.”

    Matthew 26:17 (NASB95)
    ” 17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Passover was on Wednesday the year the Yeshua was crucified. He was arrested either late on Thursday night (the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread or early on Friday morning.Such an obvious error would seem to call the accuracy of your entire commentary into question.

  13. gary says:

    “One can no longer speak of a consensus against Johannine dependence on the Synoptics or, at least, on Mark. The reasons for the revival of interest in favor of John’s dependence are varied.”

    —New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, in his book, The Death of the Messiah (1994), p. 76

    Gary: How many times have you heard conservative Christian apologists say that even if the authors of Luke and Matthew were dependent on Mark, the author of John was not. “Scholarship demonstrates that the Gospel of John is not dependent on the Synoptics, therefore we have at least two independent sources (Mark and John) for the Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection stories found in the Gospels.”

    Not so fast, Christians!

    Scholars are currently divided on this issue. No one can claim either side of this argument as fact. We might have two independent sources for these stories, but it is also possible that the core story came from just one source: the author of the Gospel of Mark. If the core details of the Jesus’ Passion Story came solely from the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark, whom the majority of scholars do not believe was an eyewitness or the associate of an eyewitness (ie., not John Mark), it is then possible that much or all of the Arrest scene, Trial scene, Crucifixion scene, and Resurrection scene are literary inventions, perfectly acceptable in Greco-Roman biographies!

    As long as the core story remained intact…that Jesus of Nazareth had been arrested by the Romans; tried and convicted of treason against Caesar; executed by crucifixion; buried in some manner; and shortly thereafter, his disciples believed that he appeared to them, in some fashion…the other details found in the Passion Narrative may be literary invention (fiction)!
    Think of that! It would certainly answer a lot of questions. Why does (the original) Resurrection Story in Mark have zero appearance stories? Why does the Gospel of Matthew, written a decade or so later, have appearances to the male disciples in Galilee, while the Gospel of Luke, also written a decade or so after Mark (whose author most scholars believe was not aware of Matthew’s gospel), has appearances only in Jerusalem and Judea? And why does the last Gospel written, John, have appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee as if the author had combined Matthew and Luke’s stories??? My, my, my. The evidence for a fantastical, never-heard-of-before-or-since Resurrection is much, much weaker than the average Christian layperson sitting in the pew on Sunday realizes!

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/many-scholars-now-believe-that-all-the-gospels-were-dependent-on-the-first-gospel-mark-the-evidence-for-the-resurrection-is-much-weaker-than-most-lay-christians-realize/

  14. IOllie J Gainey says:

    Even though it is not certain who wrote the book of John I am thankful for the scriptures written.

  15. jeb says:

    I read the Wikileaks site on John that claims the Gospels and Revelation were written by the same person or closely suggests such is true.
    Having read the Gospels numerous times I believe it is more likely that marginal Christians have collected fragments that may have been issued in a single volume and mistake that one book equals one author.
    Marginal Christians are always too quick to look for sameness in a fashion that is almost pantheistic to avoid any hint of confrontation as if our only purpose in believing in Jesus is to achieve “Peace” if they had read John and if you have you know to that which I refer. The Peace of Jesus is not the peace of the world.
    Luke is clearly written in a style (Yes I am able to read New Testament Greek but defer to scholars with a more profound ability and concur.) profoundly different than Luke as Matthew and Mark. Each has a distinct character that survives transalton.
    More often than not translation errors are a gift for those who have more imagination than faith.
    The diversity of the Gospels apparent conflicts in retelling their memories is more likely when eye witness testimony is given. The essentials are the same and the basic rule for establishing a dogma remains intact, the truth is given, Jesus was the Son of God understood in His time to mean he was the Messiah. That he was not accepted and did not establish an earthly kingdom has people as much confused today as it did then. John is testimony to faith based belief in the Divinity of Jesus the Christ.
    It is this truth Christians throughout the ages have been persecuted.

  16. Douglas Wilton says:

    Fr. Raymond Brown’s “The Community of the Beloved Disciple” offers a scholarly evaluation of the source, if not the specific authorship, of the Gospel and Epistles of John.

  17. Colin Broughton says:

    According to Richard Baukham in his book, ‘The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John’, the reason why the accounts of John and the Synoptics diverge is that he is not depicted as a Galilean disciple who followed Jesus about. He is rather most likely a resident of Jerusalem and reports events which occurred in the city and environs, events which were not known to the other disciples.

    Bauckham argues that John is the anonymous Beloved Disciple by drawing on a variety of sources including, importantly, literary analysis, of course, the Beloved Disciple appears in the Gospel narrative only as a character. This however allows the narrative to proceed without interruption and qualifies him as a witness and ideal author.

  18. JCE says:

    I would just like to say that posting a quote from a person with a Master’s or PHD is not evidence. What is your evidence? There are so many quotes above that a person searching for the truth(a true skeptic) would see right through. Instead several posters seem to just be trying to reinforce what they already believe. Might I remind you that people a lot closer in time to Jesus and the apostles explain much of who/what/why/when. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Eusebius. I would trust what they have to say over someone 2000 years using mainly linguistic evidence, any day of the week. Especially since, with the exception of Eusebius, the people above had nothing to gain but persecution for doing what they did. Sure, less than 1% of what is in editions such as the KJV and the NIV, don’t exist in Codex Sinaiticus, but if you remove the small amount of editions that have happened over the last 2000 years no fundamental teachings or beliefs are changed. Another poster said that most scholars agree that John Mark did not right Mark. ???? Are you serious? what is the evidence for that? Do they have someone from within that lifetime who says this? Do they have something listing characteristics of John Mark that disqualify him from righting Mark? Groundless speculation. Please look at all of the evidence as a whole. And do not just believe what PHD says. There are multitudes on the planet and they do not all agree, so look at the evidence, listen to what scholars have to say. But do not take their word as “Gospel”. Think for yourself. Don’t be a sheeple(sheep people) for someone who has ulterior motives either way. lol 😉

  19. Sue in Aqaba, Jordan says:

    Interesting and articulate article proposing Lazarus as the author of the Gospel of John: http://bibletruth.cc/DWYL.htm#The Disciple Whom Yeshua Loved

  20. Jo says:

    It’s generally understood by biblical scholars today that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not eyewitness accounts.

    Mark is the earliest of the gospels and there is pretty much consensus that it was written around 70 AD (earlier that the 300 AD Ryan seems so certain about). John was written around 93 AD, though the earliest found documents from John are from 125 AD. John himself died in 44 AD.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all anonymous. Most scholars no longer believe that Mark was John Mark the scribe of Peter. And it was very normal at the time for other scribes to write ‘in the style’ of someone famous who’s teachings they were interested in. It would not have been unusual for someone to write ‘as John would have written’ and then said that it was actually written by John. Today we would call that a forgery, but in those times it was pretty normal.

    There’s a good summary on the following page with more detailed references there: http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

  21. Minister ED HOLT. says:

    I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand that Jesus was not married. When if you believe and understand the bible from start to finish you should know as a child also understand as a child staying pure in your thoughts. Then you would understand that God would only accept a pure unblemished sacrifice. Now that being said if Jesus was married then he would not and could be a sacrifice pleasing to God. If people would tell the truth ? The first attribute of a woman wasn’t her wisdom, are even her spiritual desires and love for God. No it was her flesh. Her physical appearance. Paul even says it’s better to marry than to burn. Also Jesus said if you have lusted after a woman then you have already committed adultery. So tell the truth what was it that drew you to your wife? I already know
    ( sin. ) There for Jesus could not have been married.

  22. gary says:

    Watch the above five minute youtube video. In it, NT Wright, renowned NT scholar, admits that NO ONE knows who wrote the Gospels, where they were written, nor when they were written!

    Therefore, no one should believe the very improbable, 2,000 year old, tall tale that a three-day-dead guy walked out of his sealed tomb to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies and a few days later, flew off into outer space where he sits today on a golden throne, at the edge of the universe, as King of the Cosmos!

  23. John B says:

    The fourth gospel was written by Lazarus. Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved, as per John 11:3 “…Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.”

  24. Douglas Martin says:

    “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. ”
    I hope the authors don’t think that Jacob’s Well is in Jerusalem, since that seems to be the point they’re trying to make.

  25. gary says:

    Newsflash: The majority of New Testament scholars no longer believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. It’s not just my opinion, my Christian friends, it is the consensus of scholars.

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

  26. Michelle says:

    I am reading the BYNV Natsarim Version. This bible shows the true names. It says that many Hebrew scholars believe the one who Yahushua ( Jesus) loved is Lazarus (Alazar) who actually wrote John. Since the rulers were seeking to kill him because of (Jesus) it is possible that he used an alternative name to hide his true identity. The name John in Hebrew is Yahukanon.

  27. gary says:

    Are our pastors telling us the truth?

    Are Christian pastors honest with their congregations regarding the evidence for the Resurrection? Is there really a “mountain of evidence” for the Resurrection as our pastors claim or is the belief in the Resurrection based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay, superstitions, and giant leaps of faith?

    You MUST read this Christian pastor’s defense of the Resurrection and a review by one of his former parishioners, a man who lost his faith and is now a nonbeliever primarily due to the lack of good evidence for the Resurrection:

    —A Review of LCMS Pastor John Bombaro’s Defense of the Resurrection—

    (copy and paste this article title into your browser to find and read this fascinating review of the evidence for the Resurrection)

  28. John says:

    It amazes me but it should not because heresy was alive in the 1st century. The apostle Paul was struggling with this then when he wrote his letters re to the Galatians for example. The Enemy who is Satan seeks to confuse and deceive in order to keep us from the truth. Study the scriptures for yourselves and rely only those proven commentators and expositors that have survived the test of time. One of the greatest that was recorded is Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones. There are over 1600 sermons that were recorded at the Westminster Chapel in London in the 1950s and 60s. These have been digitally restored and our are available to listen and download @ MLJTRUST.org

  29. Robert says:

    Sorry Gary (of #1 Post above), the male gender of the author (who was an eyewitness) is revealed, in John 19:35; 21:24 “…his witness/testimony is true…”

  30. Dr.Gonzzo says:

    There is another thesis as to who wrote the gospel of John.

    All four gospels were written by the Romans themselves!

    The Dead Sea Scrolls would give you a clue. The 31 banned gospels form the Bible was not written by the Romans (with the collaboration of Josephus Flavius) which were all pro-Roman and anti-Jewish. Those four gospels were used as propaganda scriptures against the Jews in favor of the Romans.

    Some mind boggling information right here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE

  31. Gerald R. Collins says:

    The book of John is about a man called Jesus who at the baptism of the Lord An of the book of Matthew came the next day while Ani was a way in the wilderness fasting and praying to his father before being tested of Satan to see if he be the real son of God.
    The next day came the deceiver Jesus who was but a gentile Jew as pretender, Now to prove this from the book of John is impossible but if we take the account of Matthew and John at the same time we find we have two who are the son of God one real and the other is false, They co-exist for 2 years according to the book of John, On the last Jews’ Passover the false Jesus will be crucified on the day of Preparation and be buried according to the Jews custom by two men one a Jew and the other was Hebrew,
    At that hour when Jesus is buried the Lord is going into eat the Passover dinner on the 14th of the month. He too will b crucified and buried but Jesus of John is now in the grave for 24 hours. The moment that the Lord dies at three in the after noon there is a great earthquake and the living ones being righteous are aroused and made to stand up among the dead ones. They assemble and go into the city of Jerusalem are seen by many but the gentile Jesus is not seen among then for he is unrighteous and he will remain in the grave for 84 more hours until he is aroused on Sunday morning at sunrise, In the mean time the Lord is in the grave three days and three nights and he will rise with the second earthquake and angel from heaven but the gentile Jesus of John has 12 more hours in the grave until Sunday morning
    The Jesus of John is no more than a gentile Jew writing a story of a gentile Jew who was called the son of God but never approved by God the Father of the Hebrews. Everything in the book of John is about the gentile Jews for he never mentions the children of Israel those being Hebrews and he never warns of the coming wrath on the rejected seed of Satan who are assigned to hell from the foundation of the earth,
    Now if all this sounds strange take the book of Matthew begin with Baptism of “Ani the Lord by John the cousin of Ani, he is immediately led away to the wilderness, the next day came the deceiver Jesus and for the next forty days he lays out his evil and wicked plan of believing to the gentile Jews, He gives his evil and wicked manifesto to one lone gentile Jew in the middle of the night in John 3:15-16. The false messiah Jesus offered eternal life to those perishing but the sons of God of the book of Matthew were never perishing for there was prepared for them a place before the foundation of the earth. Only the evil and wicked gentiles all go to hell as they were assigned before the earth was formed.
    The gentile deceiver Jesus made a way for all gentile to be saved by believing in the false messiah Jesus,
    Ani the Lord came for his divorced wife and her children, He had to die to annul the first marriage vows that he could remarry his wife. Ani then became the price to buy back the wife and the children from the one who possessed them, It was purely a financial transaction for those redeemed take no part in the act of redeeming and nothing is required of them, Only the evil and wicked gentiles have to believe in the false Jesus to be saved from nothing the wrath of God still awaits them when they die,

  32. george says:

    i,m looking for the book of john with the commentary can u help me thanks george

  33. zulu says:

    the gospel of john was written by john because it is he who was everywhere jesus went

  34. EdwardTBabinski says:

    REASONS SCHOLARS FIND JOHN THE MOST QUESTIONABLE GOSPEL http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/biblical-scholars-including-those-who.html

  35. Ryan says:

    There are some REALLY ignorant people in the world. Yes, Matthew, Mark and Luke are “spurious writings,” and do not date back before 300ad, which is the same time period that the Gnostics (Christians) were inventing their false writings. John is an eyewitness account of the Apostle John (Mary was never an apostle, and women were forbidden to teach). The Gospel of John dates back to the first century, and gives exact geological/geographical locations, that the other three do not, because the other three are written by someone that has no knowledge of Israel, Yahshua, or the sacrifices, or the actual events.

  36. mikeb says:

    Several hypotheses have attempted to explain why so much of Jesus’ life not portrayed in the Synoptics is present in John and vice versa.

    Why is so much of southern U.S. culture portrayed in Faulkner not present in Harper Lee?

    Because the writers wrote about what they felt like writing about, and didn’t write about what they didn’t feel like writing about. Duh.

    Pick any handful of biographies of, say, Abraham Lincoln. Or any figure. The tone, style, perspective, focus, choice of anecdotes, etc., will vary from biographer to biographer.

    And the ultimate author of the Gospels, God, might tell us one day to walk over the hill to town. He might spend the next day telling us about town. He might spend the third day giving practical logistical advice for the journey. On the fourth he might describe the people of town and their physical needs, while on the fifth brief us on the spiritual connection of traveling by foot and evangelizing door-to-door.

    Personally, I’ve never noticed much difference between John and the so-called synoptics, or between any gospel and any other gospel.

  37. Baptismal Site “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” Added to UNESCO World Heritage List | Laodicean Report says:

    […] understood “beyond” the river to mean west of the river—though for the original writer of the Gospel of John, “beyond” the Jordan clearly meant east of the Jordan […]

  38. Maung says:

    It is very clear if you read in John 21:20-25 . It’s Apostle John . The author identified himself who he was in John 21:24

  39. feke get says:

    a like the idea that charles says. Bcoz we should b concern about the matter of life& truth not who rowte.

  40. Charles says:

    God is not the author of confusion, it is a manipulative tool used by “Satan” (Lucifer) to distract from the truth that is God. When you really think about it, does it really matter who wrote what… it’s all about the truth, loving and caring about, and for, each other. Why should we concern ourselves about chronological/geographical disagreement as long as the essence
    ( there is a consensus) of the word remains in tact.

  41. Aaron says:

    The gospel of John was written by a ressurected Judas Iscariot. Jesus supernaturally caused Judas to betray Him, to fulfill the prophesy in Scripture. The story of Lazarus foreshadows this.

  42. Wendy says:

    @Paul- I agree, what you wrote is directed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was showing His appreciation because John loved what He loved which resulted in their close relationship. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned 1 Cor 2: 13,14

  43. Paul says:

    The Gospel of John was written by John. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all 4 thrived during Jesus’ life, ministry, death, resurrection and beyond. He descipled all four regularly, although neither Mark nor Luke were one of the first 12 apostles named by Jesus. Mark was probably John Mark (Acts 12) Luke was both a physician and a historian, to whom the book of Acts is attributed. All four were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ minisrty, but only John mentioned being so. I believe That the Gospel according to John was written by John, the brother of James (son of Zebedee.) He was the apostle John which penned the Revelation and also wrote 1st 2nd and 3rd John. The stories of the four Gospel writers vary, but only in chronology and perhaps in their inclusions. They do not vary in essence. All four men commenced their written account a number of years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Matthew, John Mark, and Luke collaborated frequently, resulting in their stories being synchronized. John (Zebedee) also collaborated with them, but gave less regard to exact chronology and higher regard to details of certain events as they relate to God’s unlimited love. Jesus exuded the love of God profusely, without measure. (John 13:1) He loved all12 apostles, but John paid more attention to his love, while the others paid more attention to the events. Some had said that Jesus loved John because John was his natural brother. He was not. He was a son of Zebedee. The account in John 19:26 does not indicate that John is Jesus’ brother, but rather, that Jesus was ‘asigning’ to John the task of brother, to comfort and care for his mother. There is also spiritual significance; he was telling his own mother to now look to his ministry for guidence.
    ‘Leaning-on-Jesus-bosom’ is figure of speech. It means John was ‘in tune’ with everything Jesus said. John inclined his own heart towards what Jesus loved. John 13:23; John 19:26; and John 21:7, 20 are translated incorrectly. The correct translation is the disciple who “loved what Jesus loved”. Many people, probably hundreds or even thousands were writing on parchment quickly and simultaneously as orations were presented by prophets, by Jesus and by the apostles. Hundreds or thousands of people also hand copied letters and eye-witness accounts that were written by the apostles. In many cases, the oldest surviving copies that could be found had been hand written 10 to 50 years after the first writings. Many of those were not discovered until two to three hundred years after they were written. scientific dating alone for the generating of the documents is not sufficient to determine when the original writing was first orated or penned. The accounts, (both verbal and written) of reliable historians must also be considered. therefore the oldest discernible writings of any of the Apostles won’t date back to the time of that apostle because those copies ceased to exist. However, other historical accounts will help verify who the original author was.
    Many ‘God-haters’ have cited the scientific dating of certain apostolic copies as a tactic in an attempt to discount and devalue the validity of the Holy Bible. they have also attempted to add certain ancient accounts by claiming they were written by various apostles even though their claim is not supported by either scientific dating or other historical records. The Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Thomas are two such examples. It behooves every true believer in the Word of God to be mindful of these attacks against God’s Word.

  44. Ryan says:

    @Steve, yes spurious for the fact that a lot of the scriptural context of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quite contrary to Johns testimony. Many theologians have claimed that the three did not write from first-hand accounts, but copied from another text, which is why the geographic details are confused, the parables are not in agreement, and the “resurrection account” of Johns, states that the disciples were in a boat, when Yahshua met them prior to His ascension. Not found in the other three.

  45. gethsir says:

    But there is a verse in john:21:24 , like John himself wrote the Gospel of John.. I wanna get clarify with this..

  46. Stephen Raj says:

    I agree this author is sounding like some CNN host who knows nothing more than superficial media hear-say.

    Of all the places, is this where you try to mention the untrue “controversies” between the gospels. One quick search on the topic online would help you clarify all those doubts and yet such lethargic unscholarly attitude.

    At least not expected from someone authorized to write on this website with that name for Christ’s sakes.

  47. Stephen Raj says:

    @Ryan ..the other three were spurious?

  48. Pieter Rousseau says:

    Internal evidence on probable author identity outweighs external/tradional and ‘John’s’ gospel itself discloses clearly who the beloved disciple was and hence the author of the Fourth Gospel. And it is definitely not ‘John’.

  49. Ryan says:

    What I would like to know is, what book the author of this essay is reading?
    1. Yahshua was taken to prison Passover night (as He broke bread).
    2. He was hung on a tree a High Shabbat (Wednesday).
    3. He resurrected on a Sabbaton (Sabbath) before dawn.
    4. John’s account was written by John, the other three are spurious writings of the third century ad.

    Anyone with any brain can figure this one out.

  50. Damian says:

    My biggest question is ,How come there are no writings by Jesus himself ???

  51. Gary Knighton says:

    I remain a firm believer that it was Mary Madgalene who wrote the gospel of John. Christ loved her the most, and in this gospel it is referred to as written by the one whom Jesus loved. This is an amazing first hand account.

  52. Style of Life - Rumors of AngelsRumors of Angels says:

    […] mention this matter of style because John’s Gospel, part of which we read for the New Testament lesson this morning, seems to indicate that something […]

  53. Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? – Biblical Archaeology Society | St. John One: One says:

    […] Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? – Biblical Archa…. […]

  54. garyI says:

    I find reading these statements that there are some very studied people. But
    There are some who are just plain stupid.I’d rather have faith in the Bible than
    believe that everything in this universe came from a big bang .Let’s say I’m wrong and we just die and that’s it.What have I lost by believing in Gods word
    Nothing.But for you that don’t believe if your wrong all you have to look foreword to is a lake of fire and eternal torment.

  55. LA “EXTRAÑA” FINALIZACIÓN DEL EVANGELIO DE MARCOS Y POR QUÉ HACE TODA LA DIFERENCIA | EL BLOG DEL APOLOGISTA CRISTIANO/ INGº. MARIO OLCESE SANGUINETI (LIMA/PERÚ) says:

    […] Más sobre los autores de los Evangelios? Echa un vistazo a la historia bíblica de post diario “Evangelio de Juan Comentario: ¿Quién escribió el evangelio de Juan y Cómo histórico is I… […]

  56. Brenda says:

    It makes a lot of sense that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John. Listen to the message in the following link.
    http://columbusbiblechurch.org/index.php/audio-sp-727/sermon/10319-authorship-of-john

  57. Good Friday, or Good WEDNESDAY? | When is Jesus Coming Back? says:

    […] He Died – And Does It Matter“Sabbaths, New Moons, and Appointed Feasts….”Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It .a3a5_box {font-size: 14px !important;font-style: normal !important;font-weight: normal […]

  58. Kurt says:

    Writership. Though the book does not name its writer, it has been almost universally acknowledged that it was written by the hand of the apostle John. From the beginning, his writership was not challenged, except by a small group in the second century who objected on the ground that they considered the book’s teachings unorthodox, but not because of any evidence concerning writership. Only since the advent of modern “critical” scholarship has John’s writership been challenged anew.
    The internal evidence that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, was indeed the writer consists of such an abundance of proofs from various viewpoints that it overwhelms any arguments to the contrary. Only a very limited number of points are mentioned here, but the alert reader, with these in mind, will find a great many more. A few are:
    (1) The writer of the book was evidently a Jew, as is indicated by his familiarity with Jewish opinions.—Joh 1:21; 6:14; 7:40; 12:34.
    (2) He was a native dweller in the land of Palestine, as is indicated by his thorough acquaintance with the country. The details mentioned concerning places named indicate personal knowledge of them. He referred to “Bethany across the Jordan” (Joh 1:28) and ‘Bethany near Jerusalem.’ (11:18) He wrote that there was a garden at the place where Christ was impaled and a new memorial tomb in it (19:41), that Jesus “spoke in the treasury as he was teaching in the temple” (8:20), and that “it was wintertime, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Solomon” (10:22, 23).
    (3) The writer’s own testimony and the factual evidence show that he was an eyewitness. He names individuals who said or did certain things (Joh 1:40; 6:5, 7; 12:21; 14:5, 8, 22; 18:10); he is detailed about the times of events (4:6, 52; 6:16; 13:30; 18:28; 19:14; 20:1; 21:4); he factually designates numbers in his descriptions, doing so unostentatiously.—1:35; 2:6; 4:18; 5:5; 6:9, 19; 19:23; 21:8, 11.
    (4) The writer was an apostle. No one but an apostle could have been eyewitness to so many events associated with Jesus’ ministry; also his intimate knowledge of Jesus’ mind, feelings, and reasons for certain actions reveals that he was one of the party of 12 who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry. For example, he tells us that Jesus asked Philip a question to test him, “for he himself knew what he was about to do.” (Joh 6:5, 6) Jesus knew “in himself that his disciples were murmuring.” (6:61) He knew “all the things coming upon him.” (18:4) He “groaned in the spirit and became troubled.” (11:33; compare 13:21; 2:24; 4:1, 2; 6:15; 7:1.) The writer was also familiar with the apostles’ thoughts and impressions, some of which were wrong and were corrected later.—2:21, 22; 11:13; 12:16; 13:28; 20:9; 21:4.
    (5) Additionally, the writer is spoken of as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.” (Joh 21:20, 24) He was evidently one of the three most intimate apostles that Jesus kept nearest to him on several occasions, such as the transfiguration (Mr 9:2) and the time of his anguish in the garden of Gethsemane. (Mt 26:36, 37) Of these three apostles, James is eliminated as the writer because of his being put to death about 44 C.E. by Herod Agrippa I. There is no evidence whatsoever for such an early date for the writing of this Gospel. Peter is ruled out by having his name mentioned alongside “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20, 21.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273143

  59. Don Carson says:

    Great article and comments. I am about to begin a study of The Book of John, and this is the first site that appeared when I googled “who wrote the book of john.” What I read herein is naturally biased on account of it’s focus on history and archeology, and the factual truth. So, I am not surprised that there is no mention of “faith.” Just sayin’, brings to mind a quote attributed to the dramatist, wit, and professor, Oscar Wilde: “Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.”

  60. Don Carson says:

    Wow! I am about to participate in a study of The Book of John, and this is the first site that appeared when I googled “who wrote the book of john”. Great stuff,, and understandably biased on account of this site is about history and archeology and factual truth. So, I’m not surprised to have read nothing in the article or in the comments about “faith.” Just sayin’, the content herein brings to mind a quote attributed to the dramatist, wit, and professor, Oscar Wilde:
    “Education is an admirable thing, But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.”

  61. lytefm says:

    The Gospel of John was written by Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus loved.

  62. GİZEM AKA says:

    Just a humble comment. We know that John the disciple was the only one among 12 who died because of old age (102~) around the beginning of the 2nd C AD. It is said that he was exhiled to Patmos where he had the revelations came back to Ephesus and died there right after he had written the gospel. Today there are the ruins of a massive church over his grave and recognized by Vatican. So it is possible that the gospel might have been written by him. By the way I am a tour guide in the region, professional on biblical tours and this page is a great source for biblical history. Thanks a lot.

  63. Manuel says:

    It is very simple… & John was named. He was the “Disciple That Jesus Loved”. Jesus Love was his identity. Jesus Love was more important than himself. Why is that so difficult for most to see… It is as Jesus said, “There is no love of God in your hearts”.

  64. Prayer and Meditation for Tuesday, July 22, 2014 — Mary Magdalen “Started Wrong But Finished Strong” | Peace and Freedom says:

    […] her as an apostle, noting her as the “apostle to the apostles,” based on the account of the Gospel of John which has Jesus calling her by name and telling her to give the news of his resurrection to the […]

  65. Lin says:

    Sorry my english:

    If this isn’t the Passover in John how do you explain the fact that Judas went out like he did in the other gospels? And after the meal they went out in a garden, possibly the Mount of Olives.

    I have read the hypothesis about Lazarus being the author/beloved disciple and though it seems plausible, at the same time I have some doubts, like the fact he was nominated when they’re having a meal in his house. If he was the beloved why don’t say something like “Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while a disciple, whom Jesus loved, was among those reclining at the table with him.” instead of “Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him.” John 12:2

    Or the fact that the Beloved Disciple was among those in Peter’s boat when they saw Jesus on the shore, cooking breakfast. Unless Lazarus was just accompanying them, it seems the beloved disciple is a fisherman like them.

    With John there’s the problem he was hidden with the other disciples so he couldn’t be at the cross with the other women.

    Other thing that I thought, how can we know that the “other disciple” and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” are the same? Because sometimes the “other disciple” is a sentence alone, without “whom Jesus loved”.

    Whether the beloved was Lazarus, John,etc, does it matters this much to the Catholic Church? If one day a strong evidence proves the tradiction wrong, what issues could it bring?

    Surely the Apostle John is important enough, even if he’s not the beloved he belongs to the inner circle of Jesus with Peter and James. He witnessed important miracles like the Transfiguration and the raising of Jairu’s daughter with them.

  66. Andrew says:

    Since it was common practice for even educated, literate people to employ a scribe to pen letters and testimony – there were no ball point pens, typewriters or laptops and a first century author could no more pen a legible manuscript longhand than most literate people could today – it is absurd to say a Jew from galilee could not have written John’s gospel. Furthermore it is inaccurate to portray the disciples as illiterate working class men. They were not. Matthew you should remember was a tax collector, and a wealthy man. Peter, James and John were not merely fishermen, but shipowners and partners in a fishing business. Jesus himself, by trade a building contractor (or tekhnos, not a cabinet maker as he is often popularly portrayed), was expected to be able to read from the Torah at a local synagogue, as would most Jewish men. 1st century galilee was multilingual, having been occupied for hundreds of years by first Greek-speaking Macedonian forces and at the time roman troops. Some disciples even from the beginning had Greek names (such as Andrew), others such as Peter were widely known by Greek sobriquets. If anything 1st century Jews were more likely to speak fluent Greek and only have a rote familiarity with Hebrew (only recognising certain ritual phrases and recitations).

  67. Alethea Loree says:

    From E. W. Bullinger behold your God (Isaiah 40:9). The Devine purpose in the Gospel of John is to present The Lord Jesus as God. This is the one great feature which constitutes the difference between the other three. It has been noted in the first three The Lord Jesus is presented as Israel’s King (Matthew the Hebrew mind) Jehovah’s Servant (Mark for the Roman mind), and the ideal Man (Luke for the Greek mind). And that those incidents, words, and works are selected, in each Gospel, which specially accord with such presentation. Thus, they present The Lord on the side of His perfect humanity. It is this that links them together and is the real reason for their being called “Synoptic” and for the marked difference between them, taken together, and the fourth Gospel.

  68. Charles says:

    The famous Mgr Alfred Gilbey, a former Catholic chaplain at Cambridge, told me during his 90th birthday year his take on John.

    He said that, when studying for ordination, the fashion at the time, say the 1920s, was to downplay John as being the reflective meditations of an old man and not very historical as he would be too old and forgetful.

    On the contrary, said Mgr Gilbey, as a 90 yeast old I can tell you quite clearly who came to my 9th birthday party and what we ate and drank. I have no idea who I sat next to at dinner last night, let alone what we ate.

  69. Dmitry says:

    The Gospel of John is undoubtedly of late second century CE origin. It is just as pagan in its nature as the rest of the Greek-speaking New Testament !

    First off, it opens its account with an ancient Greco-Roman philosophical idea of LOGOS, unknown and foreign to the very spirit of the Hebrew thought and Jewish Scriptures! The Greek thinker Heraclitus (ca 535 – 475 BCE) was among the first pagans to have used the term in his philosophical discourses: “ . . . This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it . . .”

    The ancient Greek cult of Hermes, with its origins dating back to the 7th century BCE, made use of the Logos concept to express ideas strikingly similar to those found in John’s Gospel. Here is a short excerpt from the cult of Hermes: “The [Poimandres] writer fell into a deep and heavy trance, in which there appeared to him a being who introduced himself as Poimandres (Shepherd of Men), “the Mind of Authority.” Poimandres then shows the mystic a vision, in which he sees a great light and a great darkness, respectively reality and matter. From the light comes “a Holy Logos,” …the “shining Son of God,” who proceeds from Mind itself…”

    See a more detailed discussion of these issues at: http://www.therockofisrael.org/index.cfm?i=15533&mid=4&ministryid=28705

    Also, passages such as John 7:38, for example, show that the writer of the Gospel was unversed in the Hebrew Bible and did not care that the “textual evidence” that he was adducing for his readers did not really exist in the Holy Hebrew Text!

    There are many other clues within the text itself that show it to be yet another example of the Church’s frantic attempt at creating an entirely new religion suitable to the needs of the Roman Empire!

  70. KB says:

    Theologian Carsten Theide indictation is that it was written before 70 AD, because (John 5:2) the pool of Bethesda still existed when it was written. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD it no longer remained. Archaeologist excavation has unearthed this site.
    http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/ has put forth a compelling hypotheses that Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and is thus the author of the Gospel.

  71. james says:

    stick to archeology, and this will be a much better sight, and from the comments, most of you would be better served to harken to the gospel before commenting. You have eyes but see not, and you have ears but hear not. I’m sure your nose hit the air about now, but the truth is you can second guess all you want, but once your eyes are opened the internal evidence to answer all the things you are arguing is more than sufficient.

  72. Wardell says:

    John’s Gospel is the historic Gospel. The Last Supper was not a Passover Meal (Seder). and Jesus was crucified on Friday Afternoon, the first Day.

    John’s Gospel has a secret, the disciple “who Jesus loved” is Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s son. This is the son found in The Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:;2; 21:7,20

  73. Ken says:

    It’s a bit disconcerting that the anonymous author seems to equate level of detail with level of accuracy. In some cases, like the Pool of Bethesda, the accuracy of John’s details can be checked, but in others we don’t have anything to check John’s claims against. The author also seems to suggest that Jacob’s Well (which John 4.5-6 places in Sychar in Samaria) is in Jerusalem.

  74. ingrid says:

    does anyone notice that this author uses our gentile system talking about 4 p.m. in the afternoon, etc when a hebrew would use the 10th hour in a day etc? this really makes him a person more adapt to the roman, hellenistic world than anyone raised in the jewish manner

  75. ingrid says:

    i am amazed that nobody ever notices there is no such thing as 72 hours or 3 days in between the burial and the resurrection, friday eve and sunday morning… ANY MATH MAJORS HERE???? the christian version of christ’s passion. and yet jesus himself mentions it in scripture as did jonah in prophecy! if you follow scripture though you might toss out your gregorian calendar and follow the hebrew kind TO INCLUDE THE FACT THE HEBREW DAY STARTS AT TWILIGHT IN THE EVENING.. scriputre talks about 2 sabbaths, the High Sabbath or ANNUAL passover, and the regular saturday sabbath WHICH STARTS FRIDAY EVENING. now following the timeline of the passion then you will realize passover fell on a thursday (wedensday eve to thursday eve) that year and so christ was crucified and buried before sundown on wednesday shortly before twilight when the seder took place. the holy day was strictly enforced, ergo no work or business whatsoever! then friday, as per scripture, the women went out to buy ointments for jesus to take to the grave after the regular sabbath, early morning sunday. meanwhile though, counting 72 hours from the approximate burial after the 3 o”clock death on the cross, say around 5 p.m. wednesday brings you to 5 pm saturday, ergo christ rose as the sabbath went out before twilight. AND NOT YOUR PAGAN EASTER SUNDAY! check the kahluach for the year when passover fell on a thursday! and all falls in place!

  76. Pieter Rousseau says:

    The handed down authorship of the Fourth Gospel rests entirely on tradition/external ‘evidence’. The strongest proof of who an author of a biblical document is stands on the internal evidence – what the document itself divulges. As regards the author of the Fourth Gospel itself – and it is not the son of Zebedee – the internal evidence points irrefutably to the most unlikely person, the only male disciple that was present at the cross, to whom the care of Jesus’ mother was entrusted and who witnessed what took place there, who knew precisely what the nature and the extent of Jesus’ marks of crucifixion were. When he refused to believe unless he saw those marks, the church has branded him a doubter and for two millenia his name has become synomynous with unbelief. Read the Scripture in context and discover for yourself.

  77. Linda Campbell says:

    The book of John showed how the Messiah fulfilled all the Feasts of the Lord in which we are commanded to observe. John 6:4 was not in the earliest known manuscripts. When putting together the NT they took what there was the most of. John 6:4 says it was Passover yet all the men including Pharisees were up in Gallilee instead of being in Jerusalem. That would not happen. 2nd. When Messiah ate the Passover meal as it was called, He said I wish I could have eaten this with you. So it was not Passover (the bread was artos………leavened bread). Messiah was explaining that when they took the Unleavened Bread all those centuries of celebrating it that it was about Him. The bread that is pierced and has stripes on it. The wine represented the blood He would spill. He only taught one year, or the book of Daniel is a lie, and so is the rest of the Word. It was written several times that the Passover Lamb had to be a lamb of the FIRST year, without spot or blemish. Everyone was multilingual at that time. Especially the Jews. They spoke Aramaic and of course Hebrew. The scrolls were written in Hebrew. They were taught out of the scrolls. And historians saying there was illiteracy among them? How do they know this?? The teaching that they only spoke Aramaic is a fallacy. If you want someone to know what our Father wants then have them start in Genesis and then when you get to the letters in the NT one can understand what they are talking about. Eusebius said that Matthew wrote the logos in the Hebrew language and each interpreted it the best he could. The Greeks did apparently have a problem interpreting Hebrew into Greek because they did not know the Hebraisms. Nor did they know what was written before. And this Friday Passover cannot work either. Messiah was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. So He had to be in the grave by sundown Wednesday to arise on the Sabbath Day, which by the way GOD never changed. He was already arisen before daylight on sunday morning, and no one knows how many hours He had been up.

  78. Deborah says:

    It is unfamiliarity with the Mosaic Law and 2nd Temple practice that causes so many to mistakenly assume that John’s Gospel contradicts the Synoptics. Several points:
    1. There was no preparation day for feasts – According to the Law (Exodus 12:16) that servile work which was necessary to prepare the feast (carrying wood, lighting a fire, cooking, carrying food, carrying water, washing dishes, etc.), even on the 1st and 7th days which were festival sabbaths, was allowed to be done that day so that everyone could eat the feast. There was no need for a “preparation day” for festivals, not even festival sabbaths which were not as strict in the no-work laws as the weekly sabbath.
    2. The only day on which absolutely no work could be done and preparations had to be made the day before was the weekly Sabbath, even if it fell on a feast day. Thus, the regular weekly Sabbath, when it fell on a feast day, was doubly holy (a “High Sabbath”) and the laws and injunctions for the weekly sabbath overrode those for the festivals sabbaths. Therefore, the preparations for any feast that fell on Saturday had to be made on Friday. And from historical records, the only day which was ever called “the preparation” was Friday, testified to by Josephus (Antiquities, Book 16, Chapter 6, line 163). So when John speaks of the preparation “of” the Passover, not the preparation “for” the Passover, he is referring to the Preparation (Friday) that fell during Passover week, and every year one day of the week-long feast would fall on the weekly Sabbath.
    3. The lambs slain on the afternoon of Nisan 14 were not the only Passover sacrifices. All the sacrifices and offerings, both those required by Law as well as those offered voluntarily, were referred to as Passover sacrifices, even in the Scripture itself (See Deut 16:1-3 and 2 Chron 35:7-9 for example). Thus when John spoke of the Pharisees contracting Levitical defilement which would exclude them from eating the Passover, he wasn’t referring to the Passover lambs sacrificed on Nisan 14, but John was referring to the 2nd Passover Chagigah (peace-offering) sacrificed on Nisan 15 and which was eaten at the 2nd feast of Passover. This peace-offering was required by Law and had the Pharisees contracted defilement they would be excluded form eating it.
    Commenting on 2nd Temple Jewish practice mentioned in the Gospels without consulting 2nd Temple Jewish law and historical practice leads to unnecessary difficulties.

  79. Jean Duhon says:

    Appendix #156 of Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s THE COMPANION BIBLE is titled “Six Days Before The Passover.” It is helpful in (1) understanding the last week of our Lord’s life on earth; (2) fix the day of His crucifixion; and (3) to ascertain the duration of the time He remained in the tomb.
    #156 appendix
    http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append156.html

  80. Jacques says:

    This is a replay to “Bob says”:Trying to find biblical truth is down right impossible…

    The reason for there being a tree of “knowledge of good an evil” is this; as we are beings of “Free Will”, we could not have been in the garden and had free will if there had not been a “choice factor” the tree.

  81. Who wrote the Gospel of John | Thinking Faith | The Gathering » Boise Church | Thinking Faith | The Gathering says:

    […]  To continue reading click here… Related Posts 4 Feb […]

  82. john says:

    John’s Gospel probably had two sources but only one major contributor, the eyewitness, unnamed to protect his identity from the Jews.
    Criminal forensics (taking the entire context of Jesus’s Greco-Roman world in Judea and Israel plus the Synoptics) strongly indicates that NONE of the Apostles witnessed the Crucifixion.
    I posit Lazarus/’Eleazar’/the son of a rich man/brother of Martha & Mary, to be the author & eyewitness. He is possibly a relative/close family of Jesus with access to the Sanhedrin and Pilate because he is related to Nicodemus/Simon the Leper (the POTTER – in the Peshitta) or Joseph of Arimathea. Why? Because kosher laws prevent a Jew from coming close to the dead (Jesus from the cross) on Passover, no less, UNLESS they are immediate FAMILY.
    If you apply this analysis, many contradictions disappear from the Gospels.

  83. TJ says:

    Pray for discernment, seek the truth beyond science and history, allow the LORD to speak to you, meditate on the Word of God and accept that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior Forever

  84. Richard Sutherland says:

    John’s essay (it becomes a gospel three centuries later) is clearly the Gentile stamp on Jesus’ mission to earth, as defined by Paul. By the time John is written, the Pauline interpretation of Jesus as the Christ, through whom one’s soul can be saved only if one believes that Jesus was the Son of God, is set. Compare John with James, who voices more closely Jesus’ teachings and not Paul’s. Paul claims to have been infused with his knowledge about Jesus before Paul’s own birth. And now a billion people believe his version of events? Pretty remarkable.

  85. Russell says:

    Who wrote the Gospel of John is a question like who is buried in a Grants tomb. Now do you know who wrote the Gospel of John? And you know who was buried in a Grants tomb without questioning. So whose at the head of Christ’s church? Bet you get stumped on that one.

  86. Lloyd G Cook says:

    Can you remove my comment because john th apostle was speaking about john the bapthis
    LG Cook

  87. Lloyd G Cook says:

    Can you remove my commnt because john the apostle was speaking about john the bapthis

  88. Lloyd G Cook says:

    In chapter one verse six it says “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” and goe from there like
    Someone else is telling the story. If I was telling my own story I wouldn’t tell it in that nature if it was about me
    Could someone else have wrote the book?
    LG Cook Oct. 28, 2013

  89. Friendship Friday | Say WORD! says:

    […] a friend that would lay down their life for me or have my best interest at heart at All times.   Who wrote the book of John?   Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleLike this:Like Loading… This entry was posted in scripture […]

  90. Bill says:

    “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.”

    This seems a non sequitur. Why does writing a “spiritual” gospel preclude historic events? Why would it mean the author never knew Jesus?

  91. Toby Lohr says:

    Hi…

    […]a great and a incredibly newsworthy history i’m so delighted when i[…]…

  92. Bob says:

    Years ago I took a college course that went into facts regarding the New Testament. The professor pointed out that there had been countless changes (300,000 ) to the New Testament and each change took it further from the truth. The professor also checked events that were reliably recorded at the time of the event by Roman,Greek and Hebrew writers. He came to the conclusion none of the authors was witness to the actual events. In fact he was sure that John was written much later by a person who was influenced by Roman anti semitism and was not Jewish. John has numerous derogitory statements regarding Jews that don’t fit the customs of the times. He said Roman rulers at the time would kill their mothers and certainly wouldn’t ask a crowd what to do, because it would make them look weak to their men. The professor checked the recorded birth and death of well known Roman Emperors and events such as paying taxes or taking a census and said that when they mention a specific person like Caesar Augustus, things don’t ring true regarding dates and other facts mentioned. He said the famous painting of the Last Supper was an example of misinformation. The artist is allegedy painting the Passover meal and places loves of bread on the table instead of flat unleavened bread. What is the difference and does all this matter? I don’t think so. There are over 5000 Protestant denominations in the United States and numerous other beliefs. Since no one has ever come back from the dead during the past million years that man has been on the earth, we don’t really know what happens when you die. However, we do know that religion has caused more deaths than almost any other belief.

  93. Rev Peter Robinson says:

    Any assessment of the relationship between John and the synoptics that doesn’t grapple with JAT Robinson’s Bampton Lectures published in the early 1980s as The Priority of John is really not worth wasting time with. Robinson developed much of CH Dodd’s work on the Fourth Gospel. The most raw specific early material about Jerusalem is found in John. Robinson identifies five redactions in the book, all by the same hand. Taken with his Redating the New Testament (1978) we have in John the earliest written material of any gospel (as early as 42AD) and like the remainder of the New Testament, completed before 70AD, given there is no evidence any NT writer has any knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem in that year which was a cataclysmic event for Jews and from which Jewish Christians fled ahead of time. Despite being a liberal theologian (Honest to God, 1964) Robinson’s work is very much in the classical scholarship tradition of Westcott, Lightfoot and Hort (and his uncle Armitage Robinson) which is as rigorous as anything available on historical veracity.

  94. E.Griffiths says:

    I believe John was written about 30 years after the destruction of the Temple and shows the effect of Pauline Christianity. This is particularly evident in the emphasis of Christ being a part of the Godhead, and His existence as part of God at the time of the creation. John shows the evolution of Christian belief.

  95. Robin says:

    Some interesting remarks here. I learned some things from various comments, and that’s a good thing.

    I also learned that someone who says one thing in one book and another thing elsewhere is a “top class Biblical scholar”–per comment #11. Would not say so.

  96. Sara M. Barnacle says:

    Did none of you read the well-thought -out analysis of the identity of the “beloved disciple” published in this publication or its forerunner, Bible Review, a few years back, researched and written by Ben Witherington? I found his observations, reasoning, and tentative conclusion fully convincing that the identity of the beloved was most likely Lazarus. I have since taken this theory further and found more and more evidence that satisfies both the “facts” and the “truth” of the gospel of “John.”

  97. WHO WAS JOHN THE EVANGELIST? | Pastor Greenbean Blog says:

    […] read nice little article on the Gospel of John this morning on the website of Biblical Archaeology Review (my favorite magazine, but I missed a month because of the move–drats!) that roots around at […]

  98. Gary says:

    The Book of John is wonderful and powerful for all new converts. At my conversion in 1978, the preacher’s sermon was on the resurrection from John’s Gospel. Since then, when I share the Gospel, and someone is very interested in knowing Jesus, I’ll have them study John’s Gospel first and foremost, then I will break open Paul’s Epistles of Romans and Hebrews. Yes, my opinion on Hebrews is that when Paul was waiting for execution in the 20’ft hole in front of the Senate in Rome, that Apollos must have visited him there. Being bound, Paul could not write, but may have instructed Apollos to write as he orally communicated. Apollos then would insert his Alexandrian Greek in and out of the passage. Hope this helps someone.

  99. J.J. says:

    Regarding the authorship, notice carefully in John 21:24-25 that there are three very distinct people or groups of people mentioned:
    (1) the unidentified Beloved Disciple: “this is the disciple who testifies concerning these things” (3rd person reference)
    (2) the community of the Beloved Disciple… his church/followers/community (whatever you want to call them): “and *we* know his testimony is true” (1st person, plural = the community; also mentioned as “the brothers” in 21:23)
    (3) the actual author who put ink to papyrus: “*I* suppose the world itself” (1st person singular).

    The Beloved Disciple is the source for the Fourth Gospel, but *not* the author who put ink to papyrus. The author is a follower of the Beloved Disciple and is a separate person when you separate out the people mentioned in the last 2 verses of the book.

    So why does 21:24 indicate that the Beloved Disciple “wrote” these things? Well, in the same sense that Pilate “wrote” the inscription for Jesus’ cross (19:22). Did Pilate actually get a board and paint the inscription himself? Most assuredly not. One of the Romans did it, even though Pilate was the source of the inscription.

    Hope this is helpful.

  100. Josh Stoc. says:

    What everyone seams to neglect is that John is described as being a part of the lower classes, just as all of Jesus’s disciples were. Given that during that time and age at the best of times the literacy rate in the Roman empire was about 10%. The literacy rate of a rural Palestinian town is significantly lower, more like 3%, and these were people who could most likely only read. About 1-2% could effectively write legible Aramaic (the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken). Far fewer could compose such a well written account such as John. Plus only the rich, or their slaves who needed to know how to write for chores, could afford the education to read or write. This effectively makes it implausible to have John being the author. But this goes without saying that John, in theory, could have gotten enough money to learn advanced Greek (what the gospels were originally written in) and later in life decided to write a book… but it seams like a lot to believe on no positive evidence and an overwhelming amount against it.

    What is more probable is that an unnamed author living after Jesus died composed a gospel and it got circulating. A group found they enjoyed and accepted the teachings that it held and ascribed apostolic authority to the book in order to promote their own ends. Read Forged by top class Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman for a more precise and deep argument plus the citations for the info.

    This in no way degrades the meaning of John if you believe in it’s moral teachings, but know that there are good reasons to suggest it is not a product of John.

  101. Terry says:

    Looking at the accurate geographical references, the knowledge of Jerusalem, the knowledge of the temple festivals, the knowledge of what happened during Jesus´ trial, the knowledge of the content of late night discussions with Nicodemus (a member of the Jewish leadership who Jesus called a teacher, but who at first failed to understand, who as a Jewish leader, who would have been known to the Temple guards and who was present at Jesus´ trial, as was the beloved disciple in John), I would say that considering all of these coincidences, Nicodemus should be considered a good candidate for the identity of the beloved disciple and the origin of the original material used for the Gospel of John. The text itself states the material was redacted by a follower of the beloved disciple after his death. Any comments or objections on this possible identity for the ¨beloved disciple?”

    Any

    John even describes a rich young man coming to Jesus who goes away sadly, stating that Jesus saw him and loved him – like the beloved disciple. -Nicodemus appears to be rich, like the young man loved by Jesus. We don´t know if he was young or old. But He was a scholar, who probably had the background to write a theological Gospel, was present at Jesus´ trial, and at his crucifixion as was the beloved disciple.

  102. The Strange Ending Of The Gospel Of Mark And Why It Makes All The Difference | Hebrew Vision News says:

    […] Interested in the Gospels’ authors? Check out the Bible History Daily post Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It? […]

  103. John Martin says:

    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

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend