Jump to content

Gospel of John: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Authorship: wikify
m →Authorship: correct what Andrew c was unwilling to correct. Article still needs rewording in regards to Hill's work.
Line 86: Line 86:


Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as [[Irenaeus]].<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328</ref> [[Eusebius]] wrote that Irenaeus received his information from [[Polycarp]], who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328</ref>
Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as [[Irenaeus]].<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328</ref> [[Eusebius]] wrote that Irenaeus received his information from [[Polycarp]], who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328</ref>
Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many [[Church Fathers]] in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to [[John the Evangelist]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Hill |first=Charles E. |title=The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church |date=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |place=New York |isbn=9780199291441 |pages= p. 473 |}}</ref> [[Martin Hengel]] and [[Jorge Frey]] similarly argue for [[John the Presbyter]] as the author of the text.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} Hill goes on to propose that [[Ignatius]], [[Polycarp]], [[Papias]]’ elders, and [[Hierapolis]]' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all make use of uniquely Johannine material. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]], however, takes note of an early Christian sect, the ''[[Alogi]]'', who believed the Gospel was actually written by one [[Cerinthus]], a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by [[Eusebius|Eusebius of Caesarea]] (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which [[Dionysius of Alexandria]] (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the [[Book of Revelation]]) was believed by ''some before'' him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. Hill says at that time the Gospel of John was never attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus - that [[Eusebius|Eusebius of Caesarea]] and [[Dionysius of Alexandria]] never state in any of there works that the Gospel of John was written by the Alogi or Cerinthus.<ref>Charles E. Hill. ''The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church'' Oxford Press p. 204 ISBN 978-0199291441</ref>
Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many [[Church Fathers]] in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to [[John the Evangelist]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Hill |first=Charles E. |title=The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church |date=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |place=New York |isbn=9780199291441 |pages= p. 473 |}}</ref> [[Martin Hengel]] and [[Jorge Frey]] similarly argue for [[John the Presbyter]] as the author of the text.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} Hill goes on to propose that [[Ignatius]], [[Polycarp]], [[Papias]]’ elders, and [[Hierapolis]]' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all make use of uniquely Johannine material. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]], however, takes note of an early Christian sect, the ''[[Alogi]]'', who believed the Gospel was actually written by one [[Cerinthus]], a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by [[Eusebius|Eusebius of Caesarea]] (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which [[Dionysius of Alexandria]] (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the [[Book of Revelation]]) was believed by ''some before'' him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. Hill says at that time the Gospel of John was never attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus - that [[Eusebius|Eusebius of Caesarea]] and [[Dionysius of Alexandria]] never state in any of there works that the Gospel of John was written by the Cerinthus.<ref>Charles E. Hill. ''The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church'' Oxford Press p. 204 ISBN 978-0199291441</ref>


Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest [[Redaction criticism|redaction]].<ref>Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5</ref>
Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest [[Redaction criticism|redaction]].<ref>Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5</ref>

Revision as of 15:04, 5 May 2007

Part of a series of articles on
John in the Bible
"St John the Evangelist" by Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 1620s
Saint John the Evangelist, Domenichino
Johannine literature
Authorship
Related literature
See also
Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics

The Gospel of John, (literally, According to John; Greek, Κατά Ιωαννην, Kata Iōannēn) is the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist. Like the three synoptic gospels, it contains an account of some of the actions and sayings of Jesus, but differs from them in ethos and theological emphases. The purpose is expressed in the conclusion, 20:30–31: "...these [Miracles of Jesus] are written down so you will come to believe that Jesus is the Anointed, God's son — and by believing this have life in his name."[1]

According to Trinitarianism, (see also Trinitarianism— Scripture and tradition), of the four gospels, John presents the highest christology, implicitly declaring Jesus to be God.[2]

Compared to the synoptics, John focuses on Jesus' cosmic mission to redeem humanity over the earthly mission to teach, cast out demons (which is not mentioned), and comfort the poor.

Since the "higher criticism" of the 19th century, historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus[3][4]. "[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous."[5]

Narrative summary (structure and content of John)

After the prologue (1:1-5), the narrative of the gospel begins with verse 6, and consists of two parts. The first part (1:6-ch. 12) relates Jesus' public ministry from the time of his baptism by John the Baptist to its close. In this first part John emphasises seven of Jesus' miracles, always calling them "signs." The second part (ch. 13-21) presents Jesus in dialogue with his immediate followers (13-17) and gives an account of his Passion and Crucifixion and of his appearances to the disciples after his Resurrection (18-20). Raymond E. Brown, a scholar of the Johannine community, labelled the first and second parts the "Book of Signs" and the "Book of Glory," respectively[6]. In Chapter 21, the "appendix", Jesus restores Peter after his denial, predicts Peter's death, and discusses the death of the "beloved disciple".

The major events covered by the Gospel of John include:

Date and authorship

Main article: Authorship of the Johannine works

Authorship

John the Evangelist, by Carlo Crivelli, c. 1475.

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view.

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20–25 contains possibly autobiographical information. Conservative scholars generally assume I (v. 25), the disciple (v. 24) and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple, v. 20) are the same person;[7][8] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[9] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that while the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[10][11]

Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[12] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[13] Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Evangelist.[14] Martin Hengel and Jorge Frey similarly argue for John the Presbyter as the author of the text.[citation needed] Hill goes on to propose that Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias’ elders, and Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all make use of uniquely Johannine material. Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. Hill says at that time the Gospel of John was never attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus - that Eusebius of Caesarea and Dionysius of Alexandria never state in any of there works that the Gospel of John was written by the Cerinthus.[15]

Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[16]

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[17] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).

Date

Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90-100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century.[18]

Traditional views of the date

The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.

Other views of the date

Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eye-witness (John 13:23ff, 18:10, 18:15, 19:26-27, 19:34, 20:8, 20:24-29), sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50-70. Barrett suggests an earliest date of 90, based on familiarity with Mark’s gospel, and the late date of a synagogue expulsion of Christians (which is a theme in John).[19] Morris suggests 70, given Qumran parallels and John’s turns of phrase, such as "his disciples" vs. "the disciples".[20] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50-55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[21]

Critical views of the date

There are critical scholars who are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in a final text around 95-100. This date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," supposedly the leader of the Johannine community that would have produced the text. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90-100 is reasonable.

Manuscripts

The Rylands Papyrus is the earliest manuscript fragment found of John's Gospel; dated to about 125.
Further information: [[:Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and Papyrus 66]]

The earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament is a fragment from John, P52. A scrap of papyrus roughly the size of a business card discovered in Egypt in 1920 (now at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, accession number P52) bears parts of John 18:31–33 on one side and John 18:37–38 on the other. Most texts list the date of this manuscript to c. 125.[22] The difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows for a range of dates that extends from before 100 to well into the second half of the second century. P52 is small, and although a plausible reconstruction can be attempted for most of the fourteen lines represented, nevertheless the proportion of the text of the Gospel of John for which it provides a direct witness is necessarily limited, so it is rarely cited in textual debate.[23]

Sources

Further information: [[:Source criticism]]

In 1941 Rudolf Bultmann suggested[24] that the author of John depended in part on an oral miracles tradition or manuscript account of Christ's miracles that was independent of, and not used by, the synoptic gospels. This hypothetical "Signs Gospel" is alleged to have been circulating before 70. Its traces can be seen in the remnants of a numbering system associated with some of the miracles that appear in the Gospel of John: all of the miracles that are mentioned only by John occur in the presence of John 12:37; the "signs" or semeia (the expression is uniquely John's) are unusually dramatic; and they are accomplished in order to call forth faith. These miracles are different both from the rest of the "signs" in John, and from the miracles in the synoptic gospels, which occur as a result of faith. Bultmann's conclusion that John was reinterpreting an early Hellenistic tradition of Jesus as a wonder-worker, a "magician" within the Hellenistic world-view, was so controversial that heresy proceedings were instituted against him and his writings. (See more detailed discussions linked below.)

The mysterious Egerton Gospel appears to represent a parallel but independent tradition to the Gospel of John. According to scholar Ronald Cameron, it was originally composed some time between the middle of the first century and early in the second century, and it was probably written shortly before the Gospel of John.[25] Robert W. Funk, et al, places the Egerton fragments in the 2nd century, perhaps as early as 125, which would make it as old as the oldest fragments of John.[26]

It is notable that the Gospel's opening prologue in John 1:1–18 consciously echoes the opening motif of Genesis, "In the beginning". Beyond this, there has been much debate over the centuries on the theological background of the prologue: is it a formula of Hellenistic rhetoric, traditional Jewish wisdom, or some type of Qumran-like Dead Sea scrolls metaphysic?

By the beginning of the 21st century, the pendulum of scholarly opinion has swung back to a traditional Jewish background.[citation needed] While Genesis 1 focuses on God's creation, John 1 focuses on the Word (or Logos in the Greek) and the significance of the Word coming into the already created world.[citation needed]

The Christian tradition, and the position held by some Christians today is that the Gospel of John was not based on other written sources.[citation needed] Because they consider the author of John to be John the Apostle, John actually experienced all the things he described.[citation needed] There are Christian scholars, like NT Wright and John Shelby Spong, who reject the conclusions of source criticism.[citation needed]

John 3:16 is one of the most widely known passages in the New Testament: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. According to the professional men's and Bible distribution society Gideons International, John 3:16 has been translated into more than 1,100 languages.

Another popular passage from John is John 4:13-14. Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.' Jesus had said this to a Samaritan woman whom he met at a well, and he told her about the living water that he offered. This saying was based partially on Isaiah 55:1-2.

One of the more popular passages from the Book of John is the story of the blind man: "So, for the second time, (the Pharises) summoned the man who had been blind and said: "Speak the truth before God. We know this man is a sinner." "Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know," the man replied. "All I know is this: once I was blind and now I can see." John 9:24-26.

In the Unity Church, John 10:34: "Jesus said to them, 'Is it not written in your law, "I say you are gods?"'" (quoting Psalm 82:6) and John 14:12, "All these things I do, and even greater things than these shall you do, if you believe in I AM" are very popular.

Characteristics of the Gospel of John

The Greek of this gospel is elegant, and its theology subtle and sophisticated, with many parallels in Hellenistic thought.[citation needed]

The Gospel of John is easily distinguished from the three Synoptic Gospels, which share a considerable amount of text. John omits about 90% of the material in the synoptics[27]. The synoptics describe much more of Jesus' life, miracles, and exorcisms. By contrast, the material unique to John are notable, especially in their effect on modern Christianity.

Christology

John portrays Jesus Christ as "a brief manifestation of the eternal Word, whose immortal spirit remains ever-present with the believing Christian"[28]. The gospel gives far more focus to the mystical relation of the Son to the Father.[citation needed] Many have used his gospel for the development of the concept of the Trinity while the Synoptic Gospels had focused less directly on Jesus as the Son of God[citation needed]. John includes far more direct claims of Jesus being the only Son of God[citation needed] in favour of Jesus as the Son of Man. The gospel also focuses on the relation of the Redeemer to believers, the announcement of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter (Greek Paraclete), and the prominence of love as an element in the Christian character[citation needed].

Jews

The Gospel’s treatment of the role of the Jewish authorities in the Crucifixion has given rise to allegations of anti-Semitism. The Gospel often employs the title "the Jews" when discussing the opponents of Jesus. The meaning of this usage has been the subject of debate, though critics of the “anti-Semitic” theory cite that the author most likely considered himself Jewish and was probably speaking to a largely Jewish community. Hence it is argued that "the Jews" properly refers to the Jewish religious authorities (see: Sanhedrin), and not the Jewish people as a whole. It is because of this controversy that some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations, citing the above argument. Most critics of these translations, conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred.

Other critics go further, arguing that the text displays a shift in emphasis away from the Roman provincial government, which actually carried out the execution, and to the Jewish authorities as a technique used to render a developing Christianity more palatable in official circles.[citation needed] Nonetheless, these passages have been historically used by some Christian groups to justify the persecution of Jews.

Gnostic elements

Though not Gnostic, John has elements in common with Gnosticism. Gnostics must have read John because it is found with other Gnostic texts. The root of Gnosticism is that salvation comes from gnosis, secret knowledge. The nearly five chapters of the "farewell discoures" (John 13, 18) Jesus shares only with the Twelve Apostles. Jesus pre-exists birth as the Word (Logos). This origin and action resemble a gnostic aeon (emanation from God) being sent from the pleroma (region of light) to give humans the knowledge they need to ascend to the pleroma themselves.

It has been suggested that similarities between John's Gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature. [29]

No parousia

The gospel contains "no explicit reference to the parousia (second coming)," and some scholars have suggested that John portrays Jesus as having already "come again" in spirit.[30]

Differences from the Synoptic Gospels

John is significantly different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. Some of the differences are:

  • The Gospel of John contains 3 passover feasts, suggesting Jesus' ministry lasted between 2 and 3 years, where in the synoptic gospels, it is only one.
  • The Kingdom of God is only mentioned twice in John (3:3–5). In contrast, the other gospels repeatedly use the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven as important concepts. John's Jesus claims a kingdom of his own, not of this world: 18:36. See also New Covenant (theology).
  • Technically, the Gospel of John does not contain any parables.[31] It does, however, contain metaphoric stories, such as The Shepherd and The Vine. Synoptic parables are poetic stories each of which implied a single message or idea. John's metaphoric stories are allegories in which each individual element corresponds to a specific group or thing. Medieval Bible exegetes sometimes assigned allegorical meanings to elements in synoptic parables, but modern scholars reject these interpretations.[citation needed] John 10:1–5 is potentially a stand-alone parable of Jesus, which UBS calls "Parable of the Sheepfold", John 10:6 calls it a "figure of speech", Strong's G3942, however, John 10:7 states I am the gate, which makes it a metaphor.
  • The saying "He who has ears, let him hear" is absent from John.
  • The healings of demon-possessed people are never mentioned as in the Synoptics.
  • The Synoptics contain a wealth of stories about Jesus' miracles and healings, but John does not have as many of those stories; John tends to elaborate more heavily on its stories than do the Synoptics.
  • Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including all of the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet discourse and the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples when he sent them out throughout the country to heal and preach (as in Matthew 10 and Luke 10). Instead the major speeches according to John are at the Sea of Galilee 6:22–71, the temple 7:14–8:59, and the last supper 13–17.
  • Jesus driving the money changers from the temple appears near the beginning of the work. In the Synoptics this occurs late in Jesus' ministry.
  • Most of the action takes place in Iudaea Province and Jerusalem, only a few events occur in Galilee, and of those, only the feeding of the multitude (6:1-16) and the trip across the Sea of Galilee (6:17-21) are also found in the Synoptics.
  • According to the New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1970, the story of the adultress (John 8:1–11) is missing from the best early Greek manuscripts. When it does appear it is at different places: here, after (John 7:36) or at the end of this gospel. It can also be found at Luke Luke 21:38.
  • The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded as Nisan 14 (19:14), about noon, in contrast to the synoptic Nisan 15.
  • Jesus does not utter eschatological prophecies[32].

Critical scholarship on the differences between John and the synoptics

Since the advent of critical scholarship, John's historical importance has been considered less significant than the synoptic traditions. The scholars of the 19th century concluded that the Gospel of John had no historical value. Over the next 2 centuries, scholars such as Bultmann and Dodd, looked closer and began finding historically important parts of John. Many scholars today believe that parts of John represent an independent historical tradition from the synoptics, while other parts represent later traditions.[33] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar found little historical value in John, and considered nearly every saying of Jesus nonhistorical.[34]. However, most scholars agree that John is a very important document on Christian theology, oftentimes moreso than the synoptics.

Other characteristics unique to John

  • The Apostle Thomas is given a personality beyond a mere name, as "Doubting Thomas" (John 20:27 etc).
  • The hourly time is given: Greek text: about the tenth hour, translated as "four o'clock in the afternoon" [first hour is 6 AM, sundial time] (John 1:39)
  • At Chapter 13 there is the description of the Last Supper but, unlike the Synoptic Gospels (Mat 26:26-29; Mar 14:22-26, Luk 22:14-20) there is no formal institution of the Eucharist, whereas the prediction of Judas' betrayal is amply reported (13:21–32). The Transubstantiation is mentioned earlier (6:48–71).
  • No other women are mentioned going to the tomb with Mary Magdalene. (John 20:1)
  • Mary Magdalene visits the empty tomb twice. She believes Jesus' body has been stolen. The second time she sees two angels. They do not tell her Jesus is risen. They only ask why she is crying. Mary mistakes Jesus for the gardener. He tells Mary not to touch or cling to him. (John 20:17). That very evening, in the same chapter (John 20:28), Jesus asks Thomas to touch him and to place his fingers and hand in Jesus' still open wounds. At the sight of Jesus, Thomas gives an exclamation of faith but if he follows Jesus' direction, it is not in the text.
  • Some of the brethren thought the "disciple whom Jesus loved" would not die, and an explanation is given for his death. (John 21:23)
  • The "disciple whom Jesus loved" wrote down things he had witnessed, and his testimony is asserted by a third party to be true (John 21:24)
  • The beloved disciple (traditionally believed to be the Apostle John) is never named.
  • When speaking, prior to his message, Jesus says "verily" (John 5:24) (amen) twice, rather than just once in the Synoptic Gospels.

See also

References

  1. ^ Scholars Version translation from The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, editor, 1992
  2. ^ A detailed technical discussion can be found in Raymond E. Brown's article: Does the New Testament call Jesus God? in Theological Studies #26 (1965) p. 545-73
  3. ^ Gospel of Saint John, in Catholic Encyclopedia
  4. ^ "In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated 22great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, therefore, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus’ history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution. On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?" Adolf von Harnack [1]
  5. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 302.
  6. ^ Studies in John
  7. ^ http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1231
  8. ^ http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2717
  9. ^ http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1328
  10. ^ http://earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch19.html
  11. ^ http://earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
  12. ^ http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328
  13. ^ http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1328
  14. ^ Hill, Charles E. (2004). The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 473. ISBN 9780199291441. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  15. ^ Charles E. Hill. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church Oxford Press p. 204 ISBN 978-0199291441
  16. ^ Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5
  17. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. p. 363-4. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  18. ^ Justin Martyr NTCanon.org. Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  19. ^ Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John., p.127-128
  20. ^ Morris, L. The Gospel According to John p.59
  21. ^ Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the Gospels, pp. 284, 307
  22. ^ by Bruce M. Metzger (1992). The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. p.56. ISBN 0-19-507297-9. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
    • Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. p.99. ISBN 0-8028-4098-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  23. ^ Tuckett, p. 544; http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P52; http://www.historian.net/P52.html.
  24. ^ Das Evangelium des Johannes, 1941 (translated as The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1971)
  25. ^ Ronald Cameron, editor. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts, 1982
  26. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 543.
  27. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 303.
  28. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 304.
  29. ^ Kovacs, Judith L. (1995). Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20-36. Journal of Biblical Literature 114(2), 227-247.
  30. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 304.
  31. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Parables: "There are no parables in St. John's Gospel."
  32. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 304.
  33. ^ Brown 1997, p. 362-364
  34. ^ Jesus Seminar

Further reading

  • Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
  • Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John Anchor Bible, 1966, 1970
  • Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple Paulist Press, 1979
  • Robin M. Jensen, The Two Faces of Jesus, Bible Review Oct 2002, p42
  • J.H. Bernard & A.H. McNeile, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On The Gospel According To St. John. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1953.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Wikibooks has more on the topic of: Gospel of John

Online translations of the Gospel of John:

Related articles:

Preceded by Books of the Bible Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_John&oldid=128434277"