Gospel of John

...

Some of the information provided by the anti-Marcionate prologue is clearly mistaken. It is overwhelmingly doubtful that John excommunicated Marcion: the chronology is stretched too thin. Moreover, as Bruce points out, Papias for his part may have said that church or certain disciples ‘wrote down’ what John said, and was subsequently misquoted as meaning ‘I wrote down’, since in Greek the latter is formally indistinguishable from ‘they wrote down’. Even so, there is no doubt in this document that John himself was responsible for the fourth Gospel.

Not only Irenaeus, but Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian [5] as well, provide firm second century evidence for the belief that the apostle wrote the Gospel According to Eusebius, Clement wrote[6]: ‘But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.’

…Certainly from the end of the second century on, there is virtual agreement in the church as to the authority, canonicity and authorship of the Gospel of John. An argument from silence in this cases proves impressive (because we would otherwise have expected the person in question to make a lot of noise!): ‘it is most significant that Eusebius who had access to many works which are no lost, speaks without reserve of the fourth Gospel as the unquestioned work of St. John’. The silence is ‘most significant’ precisely because it was Eusebius’ concern to discuss the doubtful cases.”

Conclusion on the external Evidence for Authorship:

Date

Individual

100 AD

Papias of Hierapolis (Exegesis of the Dominical Logia)

Irenaeus: 130-202 AD

Polycarp: 80 – 167 AD

Irenaeus (Polycarp of Smyrna)

150-215 AD

Clement of Alexandria

155 – 240 AD

Tertullian

D.A. Carson writes[7]:

Even Dodd [8], who discounts the view that the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel, considers the external evidence ‘formidable’, adding, ‘of any external evidence to the contrary that could be called cogent I am not aware.’

Internal Evidence for Authorship

F.F. Bruce writes[9]:

“It is noteworthy that, while the four canonical Gospel could afford to be published anonymously, the apocryphal Gospel which began to appear from the mid-second century onward claimed (falsely) to be written by apostles or other persons associated with the Lord.’

D.A. Carson writes[10]:

The name of that man was John. Interestingly, it is only in this Gospel that there is no additional description such as ‘the Baptist’, even though the Evangelist is careful to distinguish other characters, who bear the same name (e.g. ‘then Judas (not Iscariot), 14:22; ‘he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon’ 13:26). The Evangelist does not need to identify John as ‘the Baptist’, because he never mentions by name the only other John in Jesus’ circle, John the son of Zebedee, the Brother of James and intimate of Peter. The traditional explanation for this silence is still the best one: John the son of Zebedee was responsible for this Gospel, and preferred to refer to himself only obliquely.

Location of Authorship

A.T. Robinson writes[11]:

“What are the geographical connections of the Johannine writings? There is no place of address even in the Epistles – in notable contrast with those of Paul. 1 John does not even contain a proper name, except of Cain, which is not much help in placing it. In the Fourth Gospel there is nothing to indicate where it was written – any more than there is in any of the others. But when John and his Gospel are referred to in the ancient world it is always in association with Ephesus. Irenaeus says that John published his Gospel there. [12] Justin Martyr says that he lived there [13] a statement confirmed by Irenaeus on the authority of Polycarp, who was bishop of Smyrna in the same area and claimed to have known John. [14] Polycrates, who was bishop at Ephesus at the end of the second century and a repository Asian traditions, speaks of John’s death there[15]. And similar accounts are preserved by Clement of Alexandria[16] and Origen[17]. The apocryphal Acts of John in Greek which surprisingly do not mention the composition of the Gospel, Record the ministry of John in Ephesus and are attributed to Leucius Charinus from the area. Even the Syriac History of John, the son of Zebedee, which is non-docetic but highly thaumaturigical and otherwise quite eccentric traditions, says that John came to Ephesus as a young man, ministered and wrote his Gospel there, still relatively early. In the ancient tradition of the church there is simply no alternative to Ephesus as the place of writing.”

Dating

D.A. Carson writes:

Suggestions during the last 150 years as to the date of this Gospel have varied from pre- AD 70 to the final quarter of the second century (AD 170). Dates in the second century have now pretty well ruled out of court by the discovery of P52. Beyond that limitation, none of the arguments is entirely convincing, and almost any date between AD 55 and AD 95 is possible.

The dominant reasons for defending a date toward the end of the first century say between AD 85 and AD 95, are basically four:

- There is very strong agreement amongst theologians of almost all stripes as to the strength of the traditions that the Gospel was written under the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). But Robinson has shown that this tradition rests on very little. There is good early tradition that the apostle John lived to a great age, surviving even into the reign of Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117)[18]. Jerome, admittedly in the fourth century, places John’s death in the sixty-eight year after our lord’s passion i.e. about AD 98. There is also good patristic evidence that John was the last of the Evangelists to write his book[19] [20]. ‘but that he wrote as a very old man is an inference