(March 3, 2024 at 7:04 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Recently read this article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/everyones-...w-research
This seems like really old news to me. I can remember being a Catholic teenager and noticing certain odd things about the Gospel of John including the marked difference in style and tone from the other gospels (as if a different person were speaking). And I was about 16 when I first heard that all the gospels were written decades after Jesus died - with the Gospel of John being written about 100 years or more later which represents several generations at that time.
And yes, I know that ALL the gospels could be said to have murky origins and that none are historically traceable to actual followers of Jesus. Which creates kind of an interesting question about why Jesus didn't just write his teachings down himself, or get someone to do it while he was alive - since if he were God in the flesh he would have seen that these controversies would arise.
But here it seems like scholars have known for centuries that there were particular indicators that the Gospel of John is highly suspect, yet did not openly challenge it. Even today some scholars call the first three gospels the "historical gospels" and the 4th gospel the "spiritual gospel." I mean FFS the guy called himself "the disciple that Jesus loved" (this always seemed weird to me even as a kid, that Jesus would have loved only one of his followers if he was in fact God - shouldn't he love everyone?). Also, the author apparently inserted himself into stories that appear in the other three gospels, when due to the time the gospel was written he couldn't actually have been present.
For more about the "Johannine works" controversy here's the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...nine_works
I'm interested in knowing links for any other information about this controversy.
I"m not sure I'd call it a "controversy." Bible scholars and historians have had different views about the Gospel of John (and every other part of the Bible) for a long time now. Particularly since the German Enlightenment started up new and more historically strict methods of reading the Bible, people have been debating all the issues you raise.
And I guess I'm also going to disagree with your phrase "did not openly challenge it." Lots of people have challenged it.
True, in the Middle Ages people thought John was the first and most accurate. Dante believed this. But it has not been the historians' view of things for a long time.
It's common knowledge that the Synoptics are more similar and John is different in many ways. It's widely accepted among scholars that the story of the woman taken in adultery, for example, is a later addition, not in any earlier source. It may well be a bit of fiction made up to demonstrate what Jesus was like (or what they thought Jesus was like).
Remember that in those days nobody had the goal of writing straight journalism, or facts-only history. They had points to make. They also felt it was just fine to write what -- in their opinion -- a famous guy would have said if he'd had time to say it, and then attribute it to him. There are dozens of spurious dialogues "by Plato" which are now agreed to be by later authors.
So this will only seem like a problem if you're a strict sola scriptura literalist. And there have been surprisingly few of those in history.
