Gospel of John controversy

[Jillybean]

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.

[Belacqua]

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.

[Jillybean]

\

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.

Fair enough.  I guess that modern historians should be calling it "the most obviously fake gospel" rather than "the spiritual gospel."

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

You know the thing that's interesting to me?  Buried in all of that, the idea that a god wouldn't have let (or would have known) how these fairy tales would pan out.

[Brian37]

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.

It is worse than the Gospels being written after the fact. 

#1 None of the writers of the NT used their real names. 

#2 None of the alleged "historians" apologists always point to lived during the time the bible claims the Jesus character existed. 

Tacitus was born in 56ce. 
Suetonius was born 69ce. 
Pliny The Younger was born 61ce.
Herodotus was born 484ce.

Livy is the only one I have run into so far claimed by apologists that was born 59bce and died 17ce. But the research I have done on that name says he never mentions the character Jesus at all. 

#3 and most importantly. No such thing as a magic baby without a second set of DNA with super powers. And if you were to kill a human in the manor as implied by the death myth in the bible, that would have to include the process of rigor mortis in reality, and nobody survives rigor mortis. 

And there are other virgin birth myths in antiquity as well as crucified gods as well.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

They gospels are 'historical' in precisely the same sense that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae is an accurate and well-researched account of the founding of Britain.

This applies to the Synoptics as well as to John. 

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Herodotus? Why would he be relevant with Jesus when he wrote centuries before Jesus was even a thing? Or, for that matter, Livy, who died before Jesus would have started his ministry and whose works only went down to about 9 BC (with the surviving parts only reaching 166 BC)?

[Brian37]

Herodotus? Why would he be relevant with Jesus when he wrote centuries before Jesus was even a thing? Or, for that matter, Livy, who died before Jesus would have started his ministry and whose works only went down to about 9 BC (with the surviving parts only reaching 166 BC)?

I literally just the day before yesterday had some idiot post an unsourced meme of alleged "historians" he claimed knew about Jesus and that was one of the names on the list. Plato Aristotle and Homer too. This was the idiot's "evidence".

[Pat Mustard]

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.

None of the gospels are historical, because none of them are written by people with access to first or even second hand accounts of the life of Yeshua bar Yosef. Mark is accepted as the oldest, and the very earliest that was written is 75CE (whenever biblical scholars date a bible passage, that is invariably the earliest possible date, not the likeliest date) and we know that gospel was significantly different until at least the 4th century CE (Codex Vaticanus doesn't have a description of tge "resurrection" in Mark as it was added later in the century). In fact the earliest confirmed date we have for the existence of any of the gospels is late into the 2nd century CE. Older samples are scraps of no better than one or two words.

[Pat Mustard]

PS Welcome, welcome! Make yourself at home and tell the mods what flavour of BBQ baby you prefer.