Hey! Back then there were lots of folks named "John" just like today there are a lot of folks named JOHN! My grandpa was a John! Who cares what John wrote the Book of John. Best book in the New Testament!
The detail in the book of John was written like Jesus himself told the person to write down the word...reads like one of apostles was designated Scribe to record everything going on.....
The authors refer to themselves in the plural at the end of the gospel in the KJV. That would seem to suggest that it wasn’t John, but a collection of authors who had talked to John.
It's certainly a possibility, and it's true some scholars today think there was a Johannine community that compiled the apostle's words and wrote them down later, though I don't think they use that one verse as justification for their view. There isn't much internal evidence for it other than the verse you just mentioned, which is in more translations than just the KJV. However, it's easily read that the "we" there is simply the community of faith that John is a leader of, and his testimony is agreed upon as being the true story of Jesus as opposed to other gnostic Jesus stories that may have been circling at the time.
Resurrection City Church What I find interesting about the idea of John having multiple authors, or being a kind of community is that it suggests a very spiritual world view in comparison to the other gospels and other books of the NT. There’s a character known as John on the Gnostic side who supposedly got his knowledge directly from Jesus, who speaks using spiritual themes like the ones you read about in the canonical writings of John. Though I think you have a different author in the Gnostic writings. I think the true John was a mystic who drew a certain crowd of mystically-minded people, and that he might have even had an esoteric school and tradition. I think that would explain the fact that the gospel of John was written a long time after the synoptic gospels, again with a different worldview that seemed to evolve on its own, independently of the others at least to a certain extent.
Resurrection City Church If you pick one book that doesn’t belong with all the others, OT and NT, then John’s Gospel is that one. John’s talking about a different God. He says as much when he talks to the Pharisees and the Samaritan woman. John’s Gospel is very Gnostic, though most orthodox and evangelical Christians aren’t encouraged to read it that way.
@@thinkneothink3055 You make a lot of interesting points and I agree with you that John is a different book written from a different perspective than the synoptics. I don't think if it's fair to say it's a different God--I actually think the different perspectives are meant to broaden the picture of Jesus and God to form a harmony, kind of like how in a band you might have a guitar, a bass, a drum set, and a singer that forms one complete sound. The best mix is to have a harmony of all the instruments/voices to form one band, and I think the Jesus stories are best read in harmony with one another, forming one composite picture of Jesus. One of the ways people talk about the difference between John and the Synoptics isn't that they have different conclusions but their starting places are different. The synoptics examine Jesus by starting "below" and working their way to Jesus as Messiah and God. John starts from "above", giving you that information from the beginning because John assumes most of his readers have already read the Synoptics and has decided to fill in the gaps and tell stories that weren't in the synoptics not because he's writing about a fundamentally different person but because he is trying to fill in the complete picture of Jesus. The Jesus we find in them all has the same identity, the same mission from God, the same understanding of his royal and sacrificial vocation, the same opposition from religious/political figures in his day, the same companions, and obviously the same conclusion: death and resurrection as the culmination and fulfillment of his ministry. We know that those in the early church who put the Bible together understood the differences in the gospels but thought that meant they needed to be together to give the full picture of Jesus, and that's why we have the four gospels we do.
So basically the book of John could just be made up by someone who read Matthew mark and Luke......and there's nothing to tell us that that was the case. Wow. Maybe someone said I want a popular book too. If you hung our with Micheal Jackson his last 5 years would you wait 40 years to write a book about him ? It seems like the book was written to start the verbal transition of Jesus into God.
Hey Gary, this is Joel, one of the pastors at Res City. Thanks for the comment! That's an interesting view. Most scholars, even non-Christian ones, agree John reached its final form *at the latest* about 80 years after Jesus's death, and was composed well within the lifetime of people who had been alive during Jesus's ministry. Below is a link to a Wikipedia article, which is definitely not written by evangelical authors, that sums up the consensus view that John reached the form we have now between 90-110 AD. In fact, we have fragments of the book that date to 110-130 AD, so based on that, it's probably not possible John could have been written 200 years after Jesus's ministry. Hope this helps you study the book of John and the Bible better! Blessings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
It's true many people were illiterate but that doesn't mean no one would write his story down, and the most common language to write in is koine Greek, which is what the entire New Testament was written in. Greek was the common language of writing even in Rome, which spoke mostly Latin. This goes to show the influence of the Greek language on the entire Roman empire. There's nothing strange about John writing his gospel in Greek, even if many people at the time were illiterate. There is strong evidence internally in the book of John that the author was a part of the High Priest's family. Consider that he is able to enter into the High Priest's residence while Peter is not.
Hey! Back then there were lots of folks named "John" just like today there are a lot of folks named JOHN!
My grandpa was a John! Who cares what John wrote the Book of John. Best book in the New Testament!
You also point out that it's written with a goal! So it's not simply an historical record. It contains fiction.
The detail in the book of John was written like Jesus himself told the person to write down the word...reads like one of apostles was designated Scribe to record everything going on.....
The authors refer to themselves in the plural at the end of the gospel in the KJV. That would seem to suggest that it wasn’t John, but a collection of authors who had talked to John.
It's certainly a possibility, and it's true some scholars today think there was a Johannine community that compiled the apostle's words and wrote them down later, though I don't think they use that one verse as justification for their view. There isn't much internal evidence for it other than the verse you just mentioned, which is in more translations than just the KJV. However, it's easily read that the "we" there is simply the community of faith that John is a leader of, and his testimony is agreed upon as being the true story of Jesus as opposed to other gnostic Jesus stories that may have been circling at the time.
Resurrection City Church What I find interesting about the idea of John having multiple authors, or being a kind of community is that it suggests a very spiritual world view in comparison to the other gospels and other books of the NT. There’s a character known as John on the Gnostic side who supposedly got his knowledge directly from Jesus, who speaks using spiritual themes like the ones you read about in the canonical writings of John. Though I think you have a different author in the Gnostic writings.
I think the true John was a mystic who drew a certain crowd of mystically-minded people, and that he might have even had an esoteric school and tradition. I think that would explain the fact that the gospel of John was written a long time after the synoptic gospels, again with a different worldview that seemed to evolve on its own, independently of the others at least to a certain extent.
Resurrection City Church If you pick one book that doesn’t belong with all the others, OT and NT, then John’s Gospel is that one. John’s talking about a different God. He says as much when he talks to the Pharisees and the Samaritan woman. John’s Gospel is very Gnostic, though most orthodox and evangelical Christians aren’t encouraged to read it that way.
@@thinkneothink3055 You make a lot of interesting points and I agree with you that John is a different book written from a different perspective than the synoptics. I don't think if it's fair to say it's a different God--I actually think the different perspectives are meant to broaden the picture of Jesus and God to form a harmony, kind of like how in a band you might have a guitar, a bass, a drum set, and a singer that forms one complete sound. The best mix is to have a harmony of all the instruments/voices to form one band, and I think the Jesus stories are best read in harmony with one another, forming one composite picture of Jesus.
One of the ways people talk about the difference between John and the Synoptics isn't that they have different conclusions but their starting places are different. The synoptics examine Jesus by starting "below" and working their way to Jesus as Messiah and God. John starts from "above", giving you that information from the beginning because John assumes most of his readers have already read the Synoptics and has decided to fill in the gaps and tell stories that weren't in the synoptics not because he's writing about a fundamentally different person but because he is trying to fill in the complete picture of Jesus. The Jesus we find in them all has the same identity, the same mission from God, the same understanding of his royal and sacrificial vocation, the same opposition from religious/political figures in his day, the same companions, and obviously the same conclusion: death and resurrection as the culmination and fulfillment of his ministry. We know that those in the early church who put the Bible together understood the differences in the gospels but thought that meant they needed to be together to give the full picture of Jesus, and that's why we have the four gospels we do.
@@resurrectioncitychurch180 So you agree that it's not "obvious" as you begin by saying that it was written by someone called John.
Strike one.
The main point of John is that it contains some spiritual insights and truths. The rest is really really unimportant.
Of course John wrote it. He also never mentions his own brother, James. That's right. James is never mentioned in John's gospel. Check for yourself.
So basically the book of John could just be made up by someone who read Matthew mark and Luke......and there's nothing to tell us that that was the case. Wow. Maybe someone said I want a popular book too. If you hung our with Micheal Jackson his last 5 years would you wait 40 years to write a book about him ? It seems like the book was written to start the verbal transition of Jesus into God.
The book of john was written 200 years after Jesus death
Hey Gary, this is Joel, one of the pastors at Res City. Thanks for the comment! That's an interesting view. Most scholars, even non-Christian ones, agree John reached its final form *at the latest* about 80 years after Jesus's death, and was composed well within the lifetime of people who had been alive during Jesus's ministry. Below is a link to a Wikipedia article, which is definitely not written by evangelical authors, that sums up the consensus view that John reached the form we have now between 90-110 AD. In fact, we have fragments of the book that date to 110-130 AD, so based on that, it's probably not possible John could have been written 200 years after Jesus's ministry. Hope this helps you study the book of John and the Bible better! Blessings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
They were illiterate and wouldn’t write Greek I heard said once
It's true many people were illiterate but that doesn't mean no one would write his story down, and the most common language to write in is koine Greek, which is what the entire New Testament was written in. Greek was the common language of writing even in Rome, which spoke mostly Latin. This goes to show the influence of the Greek language on the entire Roman empire. There's nothing strange about John writing his gospel in Greek, even if many people at the time were illiterate. There is strong evidence internally in the book of John that the author was a part of the High Priest's family. Consider that he is able to enter into the High Priest's residence while Peter is not.