Can we trust the Gospel of John?

 

This writing is a direct response to the recent video made by Josiah on his Youtube channel regarding the reliability, and historicity of the GOJ.

The video is titled, The problem with the fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John. A link is provided here for those that have not seen the video and for full disclosure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZnV6-WFYg4

 

(There have been some additions here due to a new video that Josiah has produced with a direct talk with ChatGPT and some points brought up have been addressed)

Right from the off, I want to make it clear that I am not attacking Josiah personally like some have done, and neither will I, I do not believe he is a devil, an anti christ or that he is unsaved, as have been some of the accusations that I have seen made against him in the aftermath of the video that he presented. I simply believe that he is wrong in his understanding of the reliability of the Gospel of John and so are many of the claims that he made in his video. 

It must be noted here that Josiah did not really make any claims himself; he mostly read the claims against the gospel of John from a book by James Dunn.

Therefore it is my contention that Josiah is wrong in his understanding because he has accepted as truth the arguments presented in said book. 

 

For reasons of brevity I have addressed as much of the arguments as I can without addressing everything, and while also offering evidence for my position, the available evidence is not at all limited to what will be presented here.  My responses to Josiah’s claims are also in no particular order. 

 

Many of the arguments presented are simply one sided, of course Josiah presented an argument against the gospel of John and so that is to be expected,  but an honest investigation would require looking into both the arguments for and against a position. The arguments are also based mainly on selective scholarship and selective evidence, we will see that Josiah appeals to critical scholarship, even calling into doubt the “fundamentalists” blind spot when it comes to critical scholarship, but Josiah simply cherry picks from that critical scholarship, and applies it only as and when he feels it supports his claims. This is something that is not unique to Josiah I must say. and while this selective scholarship is used in the video against the GOJ it could also just as easily be used against other books of the NT and Bible as a whole. He also has presented some straw man arguments. I must state that even in this writing I won’t really be presenting a pro argument for the GOJ, I may do that another time, here I simply want to address the claims against the GOJ that were presented in the video and show the flaws and weaknesses of the claims 

 

 

I first need to make my position clear, I hold to a very high view of scripture. I do believe scripture is given by inspiration and is not simply written by mere illiterate men. 

I also hold to the position that the GOJ is scripture as I do for the other 65 books contained in the protestant canon

 

So let’s look at some of what was presented by Josiah 

 

During his opening introduction Josiah makes the claim that the cannon is based on tradition and doesn’t go back to the first century, it goes back to the 4th century, he then specifies late fourth century.

 

 Catholics also make this claim, and state that it was the Catholic church that gave us the Canon.

I’m just  going to make a brief statement of faith before diving into the evidence.

 

EVERY book that is included in the Cannon was written before the Catholic church was ever conceived and existed long before the 4th Century. 

 

The books of the Bible were authoritative when they were written. They are inspired and therefore scripture because God inspired them as scripture. They are not inspired and scripture because the Catholic Church or anyone else for that matter, deemed them to be inspired. They would be inspired scripture even if we did not know that they were.  Even when they are rejected (by Jews, Muslims atheists ect) they remain God inspired scripture. The Catholic Church could not and cannot not take a writing that was not inspired by God and declare it as scripture and that writing become authoritative inspired scripture because the Catholic Church declared it to be. Neither could the Catholic church take an authoritative book inspired by God and deem it non inspired and non authoritative. A book is not inspired by God when it is accepted as inspired scripture and no book becomes uninspired if it is rejected as scripture.

Scripture either is or is not inspired by God and it will always remain inspired or non inspired. NOBODY can deem it inspired or not. God has already done so.

Paul believed that scripture was inspired and so did the ECF….

If there is a God who created this world, parted the red sea, spoke to Moses in the mountain, raised up prophets through whom he spoke and who raised up Jesus from the dead, I see no theological reason to exclude him from the formation process of his book.

 

 

Now having said that …I fully accept that it is a statement of faith and I will have to provide evidence within my response that is not based on faith.

 

I’m not going to be focusing specifically on the formation of the canon as a whole in this writing, that is a separate topic, when it comes to canon , i’m just going to be focusing on the GOJ and is the GOJ part of the canon and should it be viewed with as much authority and reliability as the synoptics. 

 

I believe the GOJ can be shown to be authoritative and historically reliable even if we remove the pre-stated statement of faith. 

Now, of course if the canon was only formulated later through the say so of the Church then of course we could make an argument against any book of the Bible and say that it is not scripture based on it not being part of an official canon in the first century, which would include Luke, Matthew and Mark.

I do agree with Josiah that the reformation did not go far enough in restoring Christianity back to its 1st century roots, however, it is a non sequitur that this also means that the canon of scripture accepted by the reformation is inaccurate.

So I have presented my statement of faith….but now let’s have a look at some facts in relation to the arguments presented.  

 

Josiah claims that in the first few centuries there was no canon, there was no dogmatic list of books that believers were expected to uphold as scripture.

Again I reiterate my point that the books that are scripture were scripture when they were written and do not become scripture because someone says they are. 

 

Of course, there was no specific list at this point, the NT books were being written during the mid-latter part of the 1st century, it took time to get them spread out through the early church, and they were only later correlated into one, its literally what Bible means (latin Biblia) books, the collection of books that make up the canon, this does not mean that they were not scripture or accepted as scripture before being correlated into the one book. It is not the correlating process that makes scripture scripture. 

It wasn’t actually until the council of Trent in 1546 that the Catholic church officially decreed their books as the official Canon of the Catholic Church. This was actually in response to the reformation.

Are we really to say that until 1546 there was no Catholic canon because it was not officially decreed to be canon. Of course not. The canon was already established, accepted and used prior to 1546 . BUT it was only officially decreed by the CC at this time. 

 

Josiah says that before 382ad there was no list by any authority, theologian, church father that exactly matches the modern canon……this is ……a technicality that he may get away with but it’s more than slightly dishonest.

 

Lists of New Testament books that precede 382ad

 

Athanasius wrote a list of the books deemed part of the canon in 367 AD. They were included in the 39th of his 45 easter writings. Athanasius listed the full 27 books of the New Testament that are included in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles today, although not in the order that they are found today. It is certainly unlikely that he was listing them in the order he believed they should appear.

This was not done as part of any Catholic Church authoritative council 

 

He stated “Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles — namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John

 

Athenasius included not only the Gospel of John but ALL the johannine corpus 

 

He continued. 

“These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them…”

He doesn’t say I am officially choosing and documenting the books of the canon so from now on everyone will know what the scriptures are. He makes no claim to documenting an official canon only that he believed he must mention the 27 books of the New Testament which actually rather alludes to the fact that the 27 books were already well known and accepted as the New Testament at this time. Athenasius assumes that the canon of the NT is already in use, agreed upon and fixed at this point. In the eyes of Athenasius, nobody is to add or remove from the 27 listed books.  

Of course this is 4th Century but all I mean to show here is that the 27 books including the Gospel of John were listed in the 4th Century long before it was decreed official by any official catholic dogmatic decree ….and it precedes 382AD and remember my main focus here is not to prove the canon but the acceptance of the GOJ as scripture.

 

 

Athenseus continues on and mentions the books that were NOT considered scripture and not in the CANON 

So Athenasius believed the 27 books were considered canon and distinguished between canonical books and non canonical books.


Next we have the attestation of Codex Sinaiticus.

While I most certainly disagree with the authority of Codex Sinaiticus I will refer to it here as many do in fact hold to its authority. Sinaiticus is generally dated from around the year 350 AD which is before Athanasius wrote his list. Sinaiticus contains ALL 27 books of the inspired scriptures. Sinaiticus has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church yet the 27 books are already included and correlated in this manuscript and outside of the authority of the Catholic Church.

Sinaiticus includes the Gospel of John and the entire Johaninne corpus.

 

Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem listed 26 of the 27 books of the new testament around the year 350 AD. The only book that he did not list was Revelation. I will deal with the authority of the book of Revelation in another study. 

 

The Gospel of John was included by Cyril.

 

Eusebius of Caesarea referred to the gospel of John. He stated that of the 12 apostles only Matthew and John left written memorials

3 And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples 4 of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

 

Church History book 3 chapter 3 

Ok yes that’s still all 4th Century…but still outside the official list of the Catholic church and all prior to 382ad 

 

So let’s go earlier 

 

Origen was born towards the end the 2nd century and died midway through the 3rd century 185-253 AD

According to Eusebius, Origen recorded a list of books and included the four gospels.


1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
Eusebius church history book3 chapter 25 

Origen listed 23 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It is recorded by Eusebius that Origin had noted some disputed books. He left out  James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.

 

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

Eusebius church history book3 chapter 25 

While excluding the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John…origen included the Gospel of John as scripture without noting any dispute amongst the church regarding its authority.

 

Muratorian Canon.

The Muratorian Fragment is dated to the 7th-8th century but the original document is dated to the late 2nd century around 180 AD. It is written in barbarous Latin but it is likely that is was translated from Greek. It lists 22 of the 27 books that are included in the New Testament. . Here’s what it says about John’s Gospel: 

“The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, “Fast with me today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.” On the same night, it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it.” (Muratorian Canon of Rome, nos. 9–16)

 

As we can see, although the assertion that there was no dogmatic canon is technically correct,  the gospel of John is included in lists of what are considered scripture that date all the way back to the 2nd Century.  

Interestingly, Josiah then goes into the list of the canon, specifying that the Marcion’s canon was the first canon, or at least a list of books that was produce. This being somewhere around 130-140AD. Here, it is accurately shown that Marcion’s canon of scripture did not include the Gospel of John.

So the Gospel of John is not included in the earliest list we have to date. 

 

However, what Josiah fails to mention is the theological standpoint of Marcion who, while he did reject the Gospel of John as scripture, also rejected the gospels of both Matthew and Mark.  If you want to appeal to Marcion to support the rejection of John as not being in the earliest list of scripture then it is disingenuous not to bring into doubt Matthew and Mark seeing they were not included in Marcions list either. 

 

But it’s also important to explain WHY Marcion rejected these three gospels. Much could be written about Marcion, however, I will not delve too deep in this study. I shall simply give a brief synopsis in order to demonstrate why Marcion only accepted the Gospel of Luke.  Marcion of Sinope was born in 85ad and died in 160Ad. Marcion started what is known as Marcionism and was excommunicated in 144ad. He considered himself a follower of Paul, whom he believed was the only true apostle. Furthermore, he believed that there was only one true Gospel, this being the gospel of Luke, I see a similarity here, Josiah appeals to the authority of Luke and Acts. Marcion explained his rejection of the other gospels which he based on a passage in Galatians , chapter 1:6-9 where Paul refers to one gospel the gospel of christ and no other Gospel…..I think Marcion may have slightly misunderstood what Paul meant by this.

 

Marcion also believed in two Gods, literally, a good God and a Bad God. The God of the NT who is the overall supreme being and is the God of Jesus , was not the same God as the God of the OT, the God who is the creator of this world who he called the demiurge.  The God of the OT was not the God of Jesus.
Marcion, therefore, also rejected the entire OT as scripture. 

 

Further still, Marcion also expunged any part of the gospel of Luke that he felt connected with the OT. He believed they were smuggled in by Judaisers and so his version of the gospel of Luke was much shorter than the gospel of Luke that we know today. 

 

Marcion’s canon of scriptures contained just 11 books, 10 of Paul’s writings and the abbreviated version of Luke.

I don’t think Marcion should be used as a measuring stick or even as evidence at all to define what is or is not scripture and what was accepted as scripture in the 2nd century.  

 

Josiah then presents a list of what I can only describe as straw man arguments and generalisations, blanket statements, making claims that are just simply incorrect.

Josiah claims that it is fundamentalists that are against asking honest questions regarding what is primary authority in scripture.

He claims that when someone’s belief is challenged they automatically assume that it cannot be true. In reality, while it may be true for some, the rejection of a position does not necessitate that a person has automatically rejected it without first investigating it. Josiah seems to think that those who reject his particular position have not questioned their own. As most Biblical Unitarians I know are former trinitarians I think that this, especially in the BU community is just flat out wrong. 

 

He claims that we gloss over the issues of textual criticism….ANYONE that has visited this website before and taken a look at the writings that can be found, will know that Textual criticism is an area I spend a huge amount of my time investigating and writing on. There are many many writings here dealing with the subject. 

 

This is where Josiah asserts there is a massive blind spot when it comes to critical scholarship. Almost asserting that those who disagree with his position are simply “lay people” and have not studied the issues at hand and their rejection of his assertions regarding the GOJ are based on their lack of study rather than their disagreement of the evidence for the assertion.  My rejection of his position is actually because I have studied the available evidence, I have looked at the claims that he has made and I have rejected those claims based on the evidence. 

 

We shall see that Josiahs own appeal to critical scholarship is selective. Josiah picks and chooses which of that critical scholarship he will assert, when it best suits the claims that he wishes to make. 

 

It seems that Josiah has selected his scholarship to follow, that of James Dunn…

 

Date of authorship of the gospel of John 

 

Josiah claims that the GOJ was written in the 2nd century, sometime between 100-125AD. His evidence for such an assertion…..well he doesnt give it but says that you can look it up for yourself in the book. 

 

The dating of the gospel of John to this date is very selective scholarship.  Josiah has selected certain scholarship  that would give John such a late date of authorship. This goes against most Critical scholarship that Josiah has previously appealed to.  John is generally dated to somewhere around 90AD. For example, Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds leading scholars of today attests to around 90-95AD

 

However, if we want to just take selected scholarship in order to support our claim then it can be argued that John has a much earlier authorship. 

 

Jimmy Akin who is a regular on catholic answers live and has debated the aforementioned Bart Ehrman on the reliability of the gospels dates the GOJ to the 60’s of the first century. 

 

John A.T Robinson who was a NT scholar and lecturer at trinity college in Cambridge dated the gospel of John to around 65Ad although he actually proposes that there was an initial edition around 50-55ad and was finalised in 65AD. 

 

Peter J Williams in his book, can we trust the gospels gives the assumed dates of Shaye Cohen a Jewish historian and Bart Ehrman.

 

However, he states:

 

“I prefer earlier dates over all those given above.”
Can we trust the Gospels pages 48-49 

 

Williams does refrain from providing an argument as to why he would postulate earlier dates although he had already referred to the prophetic abilities of Jesus as a reason to not require the gospels to have been written after 70Ad. 

 

Selective scholarship can also push the synoptic Gospels out into the 2nd century. 

 

Dr Robert Price who has also debated Bart Ehrman but on the topic of the historicity of Jesus dates ALL 4 of the gospels to the 2nd century. Of course Robert Price is a mythisist and so does not believe in a literal historical Jesus, his bias towards the 4 gospels may well be shown through his dating of them. 

 

There are those that once dated the gospel of John even later, into the second half of the 2nd century. F C Baur, who Josiah also appeals to within his presented argument, dated the gospel of John to between 160-170 ad*. Of course F C Baur died in 1860, this being long before the discovery of P52 which wasn’t discovered until 1934, which invalidates such a dating as it is dated to early to mid 2nd century making such a late date for the composition of the Gospel of John impossible, unless the dating of P52 would be found to be incorrect.

*The church history of the first three centuries / Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur pages 164-165 and 175 

 

So if we go with that selected scholarship then we get a date of around 60-70ad….but we can also get a date of 100ad+ You see how you can argue pretty much anything you want to if you just select the scholarship that suits what you wish to argue. 

 

My point here isn’t to assert any specific date for the authorship of the GOJ, my point is that if you wish to assert a date of authorship without giving any argument as to why you think that specific scholarship and that specific date is correct, then you can just choose anywhere from 50-120 ad and say that scholarship supports you. 

 

Josiah doesn’t actually defend his claim of why he feels the selected scholarship that would date the GOJ to 100-125 ad, is correct he just asserts that the GOJ was written between these two dates as if this is matter of fact and has been demonstrated to be so and is universally accepted as being dated as such…..which it isnt. 

 

How we date the gospels. 

 

It is generally understood that Mark was the first of the four gospels to be written, Matthew and Luke came later, probably a decade or so after Mark and that John was the last Gospel to be written.

So how do scholars come to this understanding?

 

The reason Mark is dated first is because it is the common belief that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their own gospels, and so Mark must have already been written and in use prior to the writing of Matthew and Luke. Although the order of Matthew and Luke is not fully agreed upon, many scholars will assert that Luke may also have used Matthew as a source and so Matthew must have been written before Luke. It is attested by Irenaeus that John was the last of the four gospels to be written and so it is generally accepted that this is correct. 

 

Irenaues quote……here 

 

Mark is usually dated to around 70Ad. Scholars generally tend to date Mark to after the destruction of the temple based on the fact that Jesus in the Gospel of Mark “predicts” its destruction. 

 

Mark 13: 1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

As most scholars either reject or do not take into account the prophetic abilities of Jesus, it is assumed that Mark must have been written after the temple had already been destroyed in order to have Jesus predict its destruction and therefore have Jesus’ prophecy be fulfilled. This was done in order to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed a prophet.

  Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus Interrupted, wrote, 

 

Obviously Bart is an agnostic/atheist. He rejects the notion that Jesus was the son of God, the messiah, and so rejects his prophetic capabilities. 

 

The main problem that I see with Bart’s accusation against Mark, the rejection of Jesus being able to predict the temples destruction aside, if the author was writing after the destruction of the temple, and if this was the author’s intent, to have Jesus predict the destruction of the temple before it was destroyed, why then did the author not utilise this as a “aha see” moment. Why did the author not then include the destruction or reference to it by simply adding a “aha see” to the text. It would have been very easy for the author to have included a line of text to the effect of “which has been fulfilled”. This would have been easily done if written after the event, and would have certainly made the prediction that much stronger. It has to be asked, did Mark not include the event was because he couldn’t, having written his gospel before it had been destroyed? Of course, if Jesus was who he said he was, then it is not at all impossible that he could have predicted the destruction of the temple and therefore, the terminus a quo would not be limited by the event.   

 

The dating of Matthew and Luke to around 80Ad is done primarily on the basis that as they utilised Mark as a source, Mark must have already been in circulation and so most scholars simply attest to around about a decade or so between the writing of Mark and the other two synoptic gospels. This really is the main line of reasoning as to why these two gospels are assigned their dates. 

 

As Iranaeus attested to John being the last gospel written, which he specifically states was written after Mark, Matthew and Luke had written theirs, most scholars agree that John is the last gospel to be written based on this account. 

 

 

What I will now add is the reason for the dating of the Gospel of John and the synoptics to after 70AD is because of the destruction of the temple that happened in 70AD. 

 

As most scholars remove the prophetic abilities of Jesus to be able to predict the destruction of the temple it is understood that the gospel writers added these prophetic exclamations of Jesus after the temple had been destroyed in order to make it appear that Jesus had foretold its destruction.  

 

This is exactly what Schnelle asserted:

The terminus a quo for the dating of the fourth gospel is provided by John 11:48 where the destruction of Jerusalem is presupposed.”

Schnelle page 476 

 

So Schnelle, because he has not allowed for the ability of Jesus to predict the destruction of Jeruslaem has therefore, given the earliest date of the gospel of John as 70AD, or in other words, after the destruction of Jerusalem so as the writer can put the prophecy of an already happened event on the lips of Jesus, in order to have it seem like Jesus predicted its destruction. Of course, if Jesus was who he said he was, as Christians would assert, and so Jesus was able to accurately predict the future, the date of composition would not be limited to 70ad. 

 

If Jesus was in fact who he claimed to be, the Messiah, and was ultimately raised from the dead, as Josiah would attest to, then this should at least offer evidence, to one that is a believer in christ and the resurrection at least, that Jesus was able to predict the temples destruction before it happened. 

 

“Attempts to argue for a later,  2nd century date, were never based upon objective, ideologically independent evidence, but rather upon conjecture and wishful thinking on the part of scholars who thought its doctrine too well developed to come from the apostolic age”

Lydia Mcgrew The eye of the beholder. 

 

“If we accept that Johns gospel was the last gospel written, this restricts the date only in relation to our dating the other gospels”

 

Lydia Mcgrew The eye of the beholder. 

 

Irenaueas states that the gospel was written to counter the teachings of Cerinthus 

 

1. John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men,

 

Against Heresies book 3 chapter 6 

 

Cerenthus was born in 50AD and died in 100Ad 

 

If then, the report by Irenaeus is true, the Gospel of John would almost certainly have been written before 100Ad 

 

Epiphanius of Salamis in his book the Panarion said that there was a heretical sect called the Alogi, who attributed the writing of the gospel of John to Cerinthus .

 

Panarion section 51:3.1 

 

His argument against this accusation was simple. 

 

How can the words which are directed against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus ?

 

 

 

Now, I want to look at the claim regarding the dating of the gospel of John that Josaiah has asserted. Dunn does NOT assert a date of between 100-125AD. This is simply false.


James Dunn actually states that  “The Gospel of John itself is usually dated to about 100 CE”
Remembering Jesus Vol 1 Page 167

He then cites 3 scholars as evidence of this assertion.

“; see, e.g., Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 267; Schnelle, History 476-77; Brown, Introduction 374-76”

 

While Dunn does assert a later date than the likes of Ehrman, although he offers no reasoning beyond the citation of other scholars,  the dating is only that of around the turn of the century. If Josiah feels that this allows for a 25 year leeway then he must be willing to adjust his date from between 75-125AD or offer a plausible explanation as to why he has asserted this leeway to allow only for a date later than which Dunn had asserted. 

 

Whatsmore, the citations do not in any way lay evidence for the dating of the gospel of John to 100-125 ad. 

 

Hulmut Koester in his book states: 

 

Seen as a whole, the Gospel of John is a complex literary composition employing a variety of sources and materials which themselves are already the product of a still continuing history of interpretation. It is also possible that the Fourth Gospel was written in several stages, as its sources were continuously reinterpreted during their use in the Johannine community. While an early draft of the gospel may have come into existence soon after the middle of the 1st century, it was probably not composed in its present form until the very end of the century, and later redactional comments were added even during the 2nd century, perhaps in the context of the production of the Johannine Epistles, especially 1 John.  

 

Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (page 267) 

 

So we see, while Koester would assert that there were redactions that occurred during the 2nd century, he not only believed that the Gospel as we know it was at least in a very similar form to what we have it today by the end of the 1st Century, he also asserted that an early form of the Gospel may well have come into existence not long after the middle of the 1st century. 

 

Udo Schnelle in his cited book, The History and theology of the new testament writings states:

“ A possible terminus Ad Quem for the dating of the gospel of John is provided by the manuscript tradition (CF, P52 P90, P66), for P52 with John 18:31-33, 37-38 is generally dated around 125 CE. To be sure, this  dating is no longer established beyond all doubt, but nonetheless both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the gospel of John suggest it originated between 100 and 110 CE 

 

Schnelle does suggests that the Gospel of John is likely a second century construction but was likely written no later than 110Ad 

 

Furthermore, we must here, also, take note of Koesters comments regarding the gospel of Luke. 

 

Koester asserts that the gospel of Luke is not as well attested to as the gospels of John and Matthew. 

 

Koester page 332

 

“Nothing is said about the gospel of Luke in the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis which are preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. But it is widely attested to just before the middle of the second century Marcion used this Gospel as the basis for his edition of Christian scriptures.”

 

So the same accusation that Josiah made against the gospel of John can be made against the gospel of Luke, the gospel that Josiah asserts is the authoritative gospel which should be given priority. Koester in his assessment of the usage of the Gospel of Luke then states:

“Thus the Gospel of Luke, perhaps written as late as the first decades of the 2nd century….” 

 

It is plausible to Koester that Luke could be a 2nd century document. This is the same accusation that Josiah made against the gospel of John. 

 

Furthermore Koester  states:

Apart from the use of Luke by Marcion, there is no certain evidence for its usage and its text before the middle of the 2nd century, 

Page 334 

 

Koester asserts that the first usage of any of the written gospels can be found with Justin Martyr.

There are no clear attestations of any of the gospels in early church writings. Only illusions not direct quotations 

 

This could be for many reasons including but not limited to:

The authors were not aware of the texts

They did not yet see them as scripture
They wrote using the texts but did not wish to use quotations

 

 

 

 

Schnelle acknowledges that the earliest attestation to Luke being named as the author of the Gospel of Luke,  comes to us from Irenaeus around 180 CE, this being the exact same person that Josiah used as evidence against the gospel of John.   

 

“The author of the Third Gospel is unknown. The first person to name Luke the travelling companion of Paul as the author was Irenaeus of Lyon, about 180 CE”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Schnelle page 240 

 

“ Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Against Heresies book 3.1.1 

 

Schnelle also rejects the authorship of both Luke and Acts being by someone that was a close companion of Paul. 

 

He asks the question: 

 

Was in fact the author of the gospel of Luke and the book of acts a companion of the apostle Paul? 

P241

 

To which Schnelle answers in the negative:

A comparison of the Lucan and Pauline theologies shows that this question is to be answered negatively. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

241

 

He then gives his reasoning as to why the answer is no:

 

Central elements of the theology of Paul are missing from his portrayal in Acts (only echo of the Pauline doctrine of justification is found…… 

 

241

He finishes by saying that the author’s theology is different from that of Pauls.
`
The author’s own theology is quite different from Paul’s 

241

 

 

 

Revelation 2: 6But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

 

 

 

The usage of the GOJ by the Gnostics. 

 

Josiah makes a number of points regarding the GOJ and the usage by the Gnostics.

He claims that the Gnostics were the first to use the Gospel of John. 

 

He reads a quote by FF Bruce, that basically attest to the Gnostics using the Gospel as they believed it supported their position and that the first quotation comes by way of Basilides who was a gnostic around 130 AD.  

 

Ok so there are a few things that need to be addressed here. 

 

Point 1) the usage of the gospel of John amongst the Gnostics is actually being overstated. It is being generalised.. Not all gnostics were the same, there were many different sects amongst the gnostics. The reality is that the gospel of John  was mainly used by one sect of the Gnostics, the Valentinians

 

Basilides himself only quoted 2 verses from the gospel of John

John 1:9 and John 2:4 

 

Its not like he was using the entire gospel to support his beliefs and Charles E Hill in his book The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church actually argues that at least the first quote may have been incorrectly attributed to him, rather it was one of his later followers that actually stated what is attributed to Basilides. 

 

Point 2) The Gnostics actually used MANY of the New Testament books to support their claims. 

 

 Basilides for example also used the book of Romans. He believed that the elect soul was suffering punishment and cleansing here for sins in a past existence . Origen states that Basiledes interpreted Romans 7:9 to support this. 

 

The Gnostic usage of New Testament books included the 3 synoptic Gospels. Basiledes again can be shown referring to the Gospel of Mark, it was this gospel in particular that was used to support the argument that it was Simon of Cyrene that was crucified and not Jesus, Bailides also used Matthew. 

 

The usage of the Gospel of John by Basilides however does show that the Gospel was written and in use by 130-140Ad. This disproves a late 2nd century authorship. The fact it was in use by this time indicates an early 2nd century dating at the latest in order for it to have travelled to Egypt.

Even if John was not used by the early church as much as the other gospels this again would not necessitate that it is not as authoritative as the other Gospels. I would assert that John was written last of the 4 Gospels and I would assert that there is a very big difference in the writing style of John in comparison to the sunoptic Gospels. It may well have been that the Gospel was not seen as being as useful for the arguments that were being presented in the first Century. It may also have been that the Gospel did take time before it was widespread and thus used. This does not mean that it wasnt scripture, it would mean that it had not yet found its place into the church in the same way as the synoptics. These arguments against the Gospel are very weak indeed.

Regardless of the dating of John this would not necessitate that it was not authoritative. EVEN if John was written later than the first century this would not mean the contents of the book would not be accurate or deemed to be scripture. This would even count if John didnt write the Gospel. Most scholarship does not attribute the Gospel of John to the disciple John anyway, neither does it attribute the other 3 Gospels to their attested to authors, Matthew, Mark and Luke. In fact, most seular scholarship says that we do not know who wrote any of the Gospels.

 

Furthermore, modern scholarship gives a date of around 600BC for the authorship of the book of Isaiah, some 200 years after Isaiah the prophet lived, and the book of Daniel is often dated to the 2nd Century BC 400 years after Daniel lived and the supposed date of authorship.

If we go by scholarship then neither Daniel or Isaiah wrote their books and they were both written much later, does this now mean that we should cast doubt over these books as well?

It would seem that Josiah is focusing in on one book and presenting arguments to discredit it, and cast doubt over its authenticity, historicity and authority, yet ignoring the fact these same arguments can just as easily be applied to other books.

 

Gospel of Truth 

 

The author of the gospel of truth knew not only the Fourth Gospel but also 1 John and Revelation 

 

the entire Johannine corpus was important in the setting in which this author wrote, BUT was of no more importance than that of the Pauline corpus. The  Gospel of Matthew and the epistle to the Hebrews were also utilised. This apparently wide familiarity with what we now call New Testament texts is an important aspect of the document. That the author could use Matthew and the book of Revelation at least seems to undermine the idea that whatever it cites or alludes to should be presumed to have gnostic affinities

 

Gospel of Thomas

There are only about six – eight out of 114 sayings in GT which are specially close to John. This compares with twenty seven with mark

 

 

Along with a gnostic John, then, we must also be willing to speak of a gnostic Matthew and a gnostic Mark A gnostic Romans and so on 

 

The catholics accept the synoptic Gospels, as do the JW, the SDA, trinitarians accept them, Mormons also use the synoptic gospels. If the usage of a gospel or any biblical  book for that matter by groups that we disagree with is a basis on which to reject it, we wont have much of a Bible left. 

 

Point 3) Gnostic usage does not necessitate accuracy or legitimacy of that usage.

 

Trinitarians misuse and misrepresent the GOJ. This does not mean that the GOJ teaches what they claim that it teaches. It only goes to show that the GOJ has been misused and misunderstood. Josiah is fully aware of this as he himself claims that the Gospel of John does not teach the divinity of Jesus.

 

But that misuse and misunderstanding is not in any way limited to the Gospel of John.

 

Remember when Anthony Rogers had a debate with Dale Tuggy where Anthony put forth an argument that the Gospel of Mark teaches that Jesus is God. What should we then do with the Gospel of Mark based on the assertion made that it teaches the divinity of Jesus??/

 

We have 3 choices

 

1. Accept that Mark does teach the deity of Jesus and so reject the gospel of Mark as being in error because it used by those that have contrary beliefs
2. Accept that Mark does teach the deity of Jesus  and so now embrace the deity of Jesus 
   
   Or should we 
3. Reject the notion that the Gospel of MArk teaches the deity of Jesus because it doesnt regardless of the claims to the contrary  and thus simply continue accepting it as scripture. 

 

I propose we go with option 3

 

 Even if we accept that the GOJ may have at first been “claimed” by the gnostics as teaching gnosticism, and this may well have led to ECF being fearful of using it, I say may, as I dont actually think that it is accurate to say it was not used by the ECF,  we can at least say that once the early church was able to correctly understand the gospel, it was rightfully reclaimed by the early church as scripture. 

 

Point 4) Usage of the gospel of John by the Gnostics does not necessitate its endorsement.

Just because a scripture or any other writing for that matter is quoted by someone it does not necessite that that usage is actually an endorsement of what is being quoted.

In fact we have MANY examples of gnostics quoting scripture or referring to it, including the Gospel of John, where the quoted or referred to scripture is being opposed and not approved. 

 

Acts of John 

 

One of the most telling examples of this author’s use of John is in 101. 8–9, where he denies that blood flowed from Jesus on the cross, in direct contradiction of John 19: 34:

‘You hear that I suffered, yet I suffered not; and that I suffered not, yet I did suffer; and that I was pierced, yet I was not lashed; that I was hanged, yet I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, yet it did not flow . . . 

As we can see this gnostic text is referencing the Gospel of John but it is far from an endorsement of the text. It is in reality the direct opposite. 

 

There is no evidence that the Gnostic usage of John was in any way different from their usage of any other New Testament book. It was used sparingly to formulate arguments for their position which sometimes meant that they used it in a positive sense but also  sometimes negatively.

 

Uncertain authorship.

 

 Josiah appeals to the uncertain authorship of the gospel of John as a reason for doubting its authority….If this is the case then we can also bring into doubt the 3 Synopitic Gospels, which would include Luke, the book that Josiah believes has supremacy over the others. 

 

This seems to me to be disingenuous to bring into doubt the GOJ based on the issue of authorship while not also bringing into doubt other books based on the exact same issue and seems to be a selective argument against John while ignoring the same issue elsewhere. As we have already seen, Josiah appeals much to critical scholarship. It is in fact critical scholarship that removes the authorship of the synoptics including Luke from those that bear their names. 

 

If therefore we do not accept that the 4 gospels were written by those that bear their names but only record details of the life of Jesus passed down through oral tradition and later written down by anonymous authors and thus do not require the authorship of the gospel to be within the lifetime of the named author , then the date of authorship actually becomes much less of an issue. 

 

This leads us onto 

 

The Early usage of the GOJ and the attribution of authorship to John.  

Having already shown the gospel of John was included in lists that date back to the 2nd century I shall now shall that the GOJ was used within the 2nd century and also address the writers of the early part of the 2nd century. 

 

 

Tatian included the gospel of John in his Diatessaron somewhere around 150-175 AD  

 

It begins with

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the  Word

Anyone even remotely familiar with the Gospel of John will know this passage.


Thats 2nd century and being considered scripture. 

 

While Tatian includes the gospel he makes no defense of his usage of the gospel. He simply uses it as part of his correlation of the 4 gospels. There is also no argumentation against Tatian or his usage of the GOJ as scripture by any church writer. This presupposes that the Gospel of John was already being used as scripture before Tatian and accepted as such. It should be noted that Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr. 

 

Martin Hengel in his book the johnnine question page 4,  States 

“between 160 and 170;‘Melito of Sardis, too, made abundant use of the Fourth Gospel in his Paschal homily’”  

 

This is also the opinion of Alistair Stewart-Sykes in his book The Lamb’s High Feast. Melito, Peri Pascha, and the Quartodeciman Paschal Litergy at Sardis

 

Josaiah states that it was Ireneaus who was first to attribute the Gospel of John to John. Again Josiah fails to mention important information. Josiah does not mention that Iraneaus was a pupil of Polycarp who was a pupil of John. We have a very short direct line from John to Irenaues . The attestation by Ireneaus is not simply some random 2nd century writer who arbitrarily attributes the Gospel of John to John and thus its evidential importance should not be understated or underestimated. Irenaeus refers to John as the beloved disciple multiple times, and attests to John being the author of both the gospel of John and also the apocalypse of John (Revelaton) For Irenaeus there simply is no doubt as to who is the author of the fourth gospel is. This is a matter that Irenaeus does not feel the need to argue, he simply states it as fact as if the matter is already known and settled. Irenaeus refers to the traditions of the elder, including Polycarp and Papias. It is evident from his writings that Irenaeus received much of what he knew from these sources and so would offer support that John being the author of the gospel was known long before 180ad. 

 

For his tradition Irenaeus appeals to the presbyters who gathered around John the Lord’s disciple in Asia Minor, but especially to Polycarp and Papias, whom he regards as disciples of John. 

 

Schnelle page 472

 

Ireneaus stated that John wrote his gospel after Matthew Mark and Luke were already written, and therefore attesting to 4 gospels with John being the last written. 

 

We have attestation of the GOJ being written by John From Africa also around 180AD ….and is likely an independent witness to that of Irenaeus 

Clement of Alexandria,. says: 

“Of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John left us their recollections (hypomnēmata), and tradition says that they took to writing perforce…. John, it is said, used all the time a message which was not written down, and at last took to writing for the following cause. The three gospels which had been written down before were distributed to all including himself; it is said he welcomed them and testified to their truth but said that there was only lacking to the narrative the account of what was done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the preaching…. They say accordingly that John was asked to relate in his own gospel the period passed over in silence by the former evangelists.” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.1-13)

So Clement tells us that John specifically went out of his way to give us information that was not already adequately told within the Synoptics.

 

Theophilus of Antioch 180-185AD

 

 And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom,John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,”

 

Theophilus to Autolyctus CHAP. 22

 

Theophilus also shows no awareness that his use of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was in any way controversial. He makes no apology for it and is not embarrassed to cite its author by name and attribute to him the status of one inspired. He cites this Gospel as he does the other Gospels, and indeed, from what we can see of his view of inspiration, as he would cite one of the prophets. There is no attempt to address any gnostic monopoly of the gospel or to appease any possible orthodox objection to the use of this book. Again there is no opposition against his usage by any church writer. 

 

 

 argument from Silence.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr Polycarp Papias

 

 

It is claimed that certain early church fathers did not know the GOJ. This is an argument from silence. Even if they did not quote from the gospel of John this does not prove that they did not know the gospel. 

 

Justin Martyr 

 

The arguments of whether Justin directly quotes the gospel of John are in no way settled, many scholars reject any direct quotation while others assert that he quoted it, such as John 3:3

Justin most certainly put forth logos theology. I shall just give a few examples

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;  (1Apol. 5. 4).

 

 

This certainly recalls the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel

Justin refers to this Word as divine: ‘For the restraint

For the restraint which human laws could not effect, the Word, inasmuch as He is divine, (1Apol. 10. 6); . . . 

 

and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, 

1 Apology 23 

 

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.

(1Apol. 63. 15).

 

In the second apology he speaks similarly, and refers to the creation of the world through the Son. ‘And his Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was 103 A. Wartelle, Saint Justin. Apologies (Paris, 1987), 244. John among the Orthodox, 150–c.170 317 begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by him, is called Christ, in reference to his being anointed and God’s ordering all things through him’ (2Apol. 6. 3, 4–5).1

These would be certain allusions to the prologue of John. 

 

Justin also makes use of John 3:3-4

He states:

“”Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. “ 

Justin Martyr first apology chapter 61

 

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

 

Furthermore the same argument can be made for Clement of Alexandria when it comes to the gospel of Mark. Clement makes one single loose quotation of the entire gospel of Mark chapter 10. Should we question the authenticity of this gospel based on Clements lack of quotation of it? 

It should be noted that Justin Martyr did not Quote from Philimon, Hebrews, James, Jude, or the 2nd and 4rd epistles of John.

Scholars debate whether Justin quoted from the Gospel of Mark. Justin does not refer to any of the contents of the Gospel of Mark that is independent to the Gospel and not found in the other synoptic Gospels.

 

 

Polycarp, 

 

It is claimed that Polycarp did not quote from the GOJ

Ireneaus tells us that Polycarp wrote many letters to the churches and even individuals. However, only one remains the epistle to the Philippians which was actually written very early in his career,  written some 50 years or so before his death. It is not possible therefore to get an accurate and realistic representation of his works or whether Polycarp quoted the Gospel of John.  It is therefore slightly dishonest to argue that Polycarp did not utilise the Gospel of John based on his one existent work , it could only be argued that he did not do so in the one work that we have that remains to this date.

 

While we cannot demonstrate any direct quotation of John by Polycarp, Charles hill in his book, I believe argues convincingly, in my opinion, that Polycarp and Ignatius both utilised the Gospel of John and the johannine corpus as a whole, to formulate their beliefs.  

 

Papias may well have known of the gospel of John according to Charles E Hill 

 

Irenaeus records what he claims is stated by the presbyters, the elders in the church. Within this record Irenaeus quotes from John 14:2 “ “In My Father’s house are many mansions.”  

 

“ And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.

2. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, “In My Father’s house are many mansions.” For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. “But when He saith, All things shall be subdued unto Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

 (Against Heresies book 5. 34. 2)

 

While Ireneaus may well have been the first to attribute the Gospel of John to the apostle John, it is evident that the elders of the church were already aware of the gospel and were using it, at least in the area of  Asia Minor. 

 

 In relation to the report of the elder Charles E Hill states:

“Most agree that Irenaeus got this report of the presbyters’ words from Papias. If so, this is evidence that the Fourth Gospel had been used among the orthodox from a time well before Papias wrote, and this would put it in perhaps the first or second decade of the second century, in Papias’ time, and of course in Polycarp’s time.”
The Johannine corpus in the early church (page111) 

 

J.B Lightfoot conjectured Papias as a source 

He further states: 

But while it is far from clear just what the facts are which underlie these statements, with little doubt Irenaeus derived all of them from the books of Papias, as he tells us in one instance (5. 33. 4). 111

 

So while it is clear that the elders of the church that Ireneaus refers to, not only knew the Gospel of John, but utlised it, if Irenaeus did indeed obtain this report from the writings of Papias, this would demonstrate that at least Papias was aware of and utilised the Gospel of john which could then very well date the usage of John back into the early part of the 2nd Century. 

 

Rene´ Kieffer in his study into the usage of the Gospel of John  thinks that at least six passages in Ignatius’ letters demonstrate the bishop’s certain knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, possibly in an earlier form but most probably in essentially the same form in which it has come down to us

 

 

Area of providence 

 

Josiah makes an argument against the Gospel of John based on an assertion that the Gospel was actually composed in the area of Alexandria Egypt, much of which is down to the existence of the earliest manuscript of John P52 . He then states that Alexandria is the home of the wisdom logos philosophy.

 

Again, this argumentation is also very selective, this is not the opinion of the majority of scholarship, which does not attest to the providence of the Gospel of John being Alexandria 

 

The oldest manuscripts of Matthew  Mark 

 and Luke are all papyri, all of which come from Alexandria.

They no more lay witness to the origin of the synoptics to Alexandria as P52 does for John. All it does is show witness that the 4 gospels were known in Alexandria from an early date.

There is a simple explanation as to why the papyri we have all come from this area.  Papyri lasts longer in certain conditions. 

 

It would seem that Josiah would like to base our understanding of manuscripts on an area of the world where the weather is optimal at prolonging the life of Papyri. 

 

Koester, who has already been cited, certainly cannot be used as support for Alexandria being the origin of the Gospel, in fact, he would assert a Syro-Palastinian origin. 

 

Since all papyri of the New Testament from this early period have been found in Egypt, it is impossible to draw conclusions from such finds with the respect to the usage and distribution of the gospel of John in general; but there can be little doubt that this gospel was widely known in Egypt at a very early time.
However, it is very unlikely that it was written in that country, the close relationship of John’s gospel to syncretistic Judaism and to the Gnosticizing interpretation of the sayings of Jesus, the ties of the gospel with Palestine geography (Sameria, Jordan), and the history-of-religions milieu in general point to a Syro-Palestinian origin.

 

Koester Ancient Christian Gospels page 245. 

 

As already seen Irenaeus stated that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus

“ Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Against Heresies book 3.1.1 

 

Eusebius also attested to this: 

 

4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.

Eusebius Church History (Book V) chapter 8 

Schnelle proposes a number of different possible locations for the composition of the Gospel of John, these including Asia Minor (Ephesus) and Syria. Interestingly he does not include Alexandria Egypt amongst those possibilities. However, Schnelle states that Ephesus is the most likely place of origin. 

 

“Of all these possibilities, Asia Minor (Ephesus) is the most likely place for the composition of the gospel of John.” 

 

Schnelle page 475

 

 The argument frequently made in older scholarship and still sometimes found in recent exegesis, that Johannine theology has close contacts with Gnosticism, no longer is valid, so that a principle reason for seeing Syria as the place of composition of the fourth Gospel has now fallen away.”

Schnelle 476

 

Most people know that I am a Textus Receptus kind of guy, Josiah however prefers the modern critical text. So I find it slightly odd that he attacks an area of the world namely Alexandria Egypt from which originates 99% of the manuscripts that formulate the critical text, specifically Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and to a lesser extent Alexandrinus. 

 

 

Lastly I want to look at the Differences between the GOJ and the Synoptics 

 

Josiah states that probably the most important issues are thematic, Jesus in the synopics speaks more about the KOH KOG than he does about himself whereas in John he speaks little about the kingdom and speaks largely about his own self consciousness and self proclamation. He questions why the synoptic gospels would have excluded the “I am” statements if Jesus had actually stated them. 

 

Firstly, the differences between the synoptic gospels and  the Gospel of John are well known. I would however argue that there are many more similarities than most people would immediately see. 

 

Secondly, a different style of writing and focal point does not necessitate that the GOJ is somehow less reliable simply because it does not follow the style of the other 3 Gospels.

John makes 2 rather important statements in his gospel

1) Unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke , John tells us his exact reasoning for writing his gospel 

 

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

John wrote the Gospel so that those who would read it would believe that Jesus is the Christ. 

 

This is not to say that Matthew, Mark and Luke do not have the intention of asserting Jesus is the Christ but John explicitly states that this is his purpose for writing his gospel. Therefore, the things that John records and the way in which he records them are done for that specific purpose. 

 

Much of the argumentation regarding the differences between the synoptics and the Gospel of John come from not recognising the focal point of the gospel of John and misunderstanding that John is not trying to imply the divinity of Jesus but his messiahship. 

 

Josiah even offers us a quote from the book

It is true to say that whereas the Miracles of healing in the synoptics are miracles of mercy and compassion, wrought because Jesus had sympathy with the sufferers, the miracles recorded by the fourth evangelist tend to the glory of him who wrote them. They are proofs not of his humanity but of his divinity. 

 

We see here the author asserts a distinction between humanity and divinity which is false. 

 

Josiah then follows this up saying the miracles of the 4th gospel attest to who Jesus is
 

 

Yes….EXACTLY…..thats exactly what John stated in John 20:31, what is recorded IS to attest to who Jesus is. Thats the point of the Gospel, thats the focal point of the gospel. Which is why Johns Gospel as correctly attested to by Josiah is more in reference to who he is.

 

 

Later Josiah has to even argue against the argument that he is putting forth because the author that he is quoting is asserting that the Gospel of John is inferring divinity which Josiah rejects. 

 

2) John tells us that Jesus did many things NOT included in HIS book. 

 

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

 

This, therefore, demonstrates that John was fully aware of other signs that Jesus did but has chosen not to include them within his book. John included things that he felt warranted inclusion within his Gospel and would demonstrate that which he wished to demonstrate, that Jesus was the Christ. It could very well be that John did not feel it necessary to restate certain points that had already been recorded within the synoptics but wished to include events and sayings that the Synoptics had not included, 

which is exactly what Clement stated that he did as we have already seen. 

 

While Matthew, Mark and Luke would obviously have been written so that Jesus being the Messiah would have been demonstrated it is clear that they also had other theological points that they wished to make within their own gospels.

 

Josaiah makes a big deal out of the lack of attestation to the raising of Lazarus in the synoptics claiming, it makes no sense as to why the synoptics would have omitted this miracle if it happened.  This is pure assumption. It is in reality , yet another argument from silence. 

 

 He is reading his own supposition of what the synoptic writers would or should have recorded. Just because Josiah is unable to fathom why the synoptic gospels would not include this miracle within their narrative does not offer proof that the miracle did not happen, or that they were unaware of the miracle, it only demonstrates that they did not include it. It assumes that the synoptics recorded all of the miracles of Jesus, that any event that is not recorded within the synoptic gospels cannot be historical and also while it is a miraculous miracle, it arbitrarily elevates the raising of lazarus above any other miracle that Jesus did. 

 

 It must be noted that while the synoptics are similar and do record much of the same information within them, there are things contained within each that are unique only to that gospel or that are shared only with one other. 

 

Such as the narrative of the birth of Jesus which is only present within Matthew and Luke and does not feature within Mark. We should ask then, why such an important event as the birth of Jesus would not be included in Marks gospel?  Paul also makes no mention of the birth of Jesus nor does he make mention to Jesus being baptised by John the baptist. 

 

But even within the birth narrative we see that Matthew is the only one who records the Pilgrimage of the Magi and the slaughter of all the children by Herod.  Luke alone records the visit of Mary to Elizabeth and the birth of John the Baptist.

The differences here should not bring into doubt these events; it should only further support the fact that each gospel writer has their own individual points that they wish to articulate, including events that they wished to specify. John made his perfectly clear. 

 

Matthew is the only gospel writer to record Jesus’ words when it comes to adultery for example 

Matthew 5: 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This doesnt mean that Jesus did not state these words, it only goes to show that it is Matthew alone who records them. 

 

Matthew actually records many events and sayings that are not recorded in the other two synoptic gospels. 

 

Likewise, Luke also has recorded many events and sayings  that can only be found in his gospel 

 

Luke is the only one from all four gospels that records Jesus being dedicated at the temple in Luke chapter 2: 21-24

 

Luke 2: 21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

 

Luke is also the only one that records Jesus at the temple as a young boy 

 

Luke 2: 41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. 45And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

 

What I find particular interesting is that while Josiah specifically makes reference to John being the only one who recorded Lazarus being raised from the dead, the raising of Lazarus was not the only person that Jesus raised from the dead. Jesus raises a  widows son from the dead. This is found in Luke chapter 7 

 

Luke 7: 11And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people. 12Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. 13And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. 14And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. 15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. 16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. 17And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.

Luke is the only one that records this event. Neither of the other two synoptic gospels nor John make any reference to this event. In fact Luke only dedicates a total of 6 verses to this miraculous event. 

If the fact it is only recorded in one Gospel makes it historically unreliable….then we can only assert that Luke is also historically unreliable. 

 

Other events recorded only in Luke: 

 

Women minister to Jesus:

Luke 8:1And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, 2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, 3And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

 

The sending of the 72:

Luke 10: 1After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. 4Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. 5And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. 6And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. 7And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 10But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

 

Jesus heals a woman on the sabbath:

Luke 13: 10And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? 16And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

 

Jesus heals 10 lepers:

 

Luke 17:11And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: 13And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Jesus before Herod 23:7-12

Luke also doesn’t mention the great commission as attested to in both Matthew and Mark. 

I could give many more examples but what has been shown should be sufficient to demonstrate that certain events were recorded by only one or two of the gospel writers.

 

It is also very possible that John recorded the story of Lazarus as it had not been recorded in the other synoptic Gospels due to the timing of their authorship.

Lazarus was a wanted man after Jesus had risen him from the dead. The Pharisees had sought to kill him.

It could be that John was able to include the story as Lazarus had now died.

We also see John mention Mary, the sister of Lazarus,  who anointed the feet of Jesus.

John 11:1Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 

John 12: 1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

This story is told in both Matthew and Mark but the woman remains unnamed

Matthew 26:6Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 

Mark 14:3And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Some have actuually supposed that the unnamed man who ran off naked as recorded in Mark was indeed Lazarus but Mark chose to keep his identity a secret. What we should notice from the record is that while they had come for Jesus, they try also to grab hold of this other man. They do not try to lay hands on any of the others. Could it be because they also wanted to catch and put Lazarus to death?

Mark 14: 51And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: 52And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

We also get John naming Peter as the disciple who cut off the servants ear. He remains unnamed in the synoptic Gospels

Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

Mark 14:47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

Luke 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

Peter had already died by the time that John wrote his Gospel and so his anonymity was no longer required.

While John is the only one to record the I am sayings in Jesus, if we understand that contrary to the trinitarian claim that Jesus is proclaiming deity with his proclamations but rather understand that Jesus is proclaiming himself the Messiah, then it is easily understood, when we hold John 20:31 in mind, that John would specifically record these sayings.  It is very unlikely that the full teachings and every saying that Jesus uttered are recorded within the 4 gospels and so there is no reason to assume that John recording sayings of Jesus that the synoptics do not would be a cause for concern, especially in light of John’s clear agenda.

 

 

Josiah claims there are contradictions in the account of John.

Here are a couple I have addressed. 

 

Did John know that Jesus was the Messiah or not? – Follow In Truth

What day did Jesus really die? The truth – Follow In Truth

Here I shall address some directly.

Matthew 11:7-15 & 17:12-13: Jesus says that John the Baptist was a prophet, and more.

John 1:21: John himself says that he is not a prophet, nor is he Elijah.

However, when we look at the actual text, John does not say that he is NOT a prophet, he answers (correctly) the question of the Priests and Levites as to whether he was THAT/The prophet

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

The Greek includes the difinitive article Ὁ ho. John the Baptist in no way says that he is not a prophet but rather he is not THE prophet, the specific prophet that the Priests had asked him if he was him. This was clearly a reference to the prophet that would come (Deuteronomy 18:18)

The argument that this is a contradiction clearly shows that the text has either been misunderstood or is being misrepresented.

Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13: Immediately following his baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.

John 2:1-11: Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.

This is a perfect example of the text of the Gospel of john being misrepresented or misunderstood. When we read the Gospel of John we will actually see that there is no baptism of Jesus recorded in the gospel of John. When Jesus comes to John in John 1:29 this is AFTER the baptism. Jesus has already been baptised in the Gospel of John narrative. John is telling the narrative of an event that has already happened. The 3rd day is not after the baptism but the 3rd day after Jesus returns and comes to John.

John 1:29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

So we see that John is telling of the event of seeing the spirit descend upon Jesus from the viewpoint of this having already happened. He is now telling that this person, Jesus, is the one that he had referred to as being preferred before him and explaining that he didn’t know who he was but that he was told that the one he baptised and would see the spirit descend then that was the Messiah. John recalls that he saw the spirit descend upon Jesus. This is clearly from the standpoint that he has already baptised Jesus and had seen the spirit descend. Thus to claim that Jesus was in Cana 3 days after his baptism is simply incorrect. He was in Cana at a wedding 3 days after the day he came to John which was clearly after the baptism. There is no record of how many days after the baptism that Jesus had come to John, but when put together with the synoptic gospels we can know that it must have been 40 days later.

The last chapter of John.

Was the last chapter of John added at a later date? this is the claim by some scholars.

There are no existing manuscripts that contain the ending of John 20 that do not also include John chapter 21.

John 21 is included in P66, Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

This chapter would have had to have entered into scripture in all areas of the Christ world without contestation, in all languages. There is no historical evidence for this.

 

 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere