The Gospel of John

[RJM]

Was this Nicodemus?

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
(John 21:20-24)

 

[badger]

@Thomas
@badger

I sometimes wonder if Nicodemus could have been the author of John's gospel. Nicodemus has always intrigued me. He was also the one who bought the spices to the tomb. Do either of you have more insight? Does he meet the requirements as author?

{3:1} There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

{19:39} And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight. ]{19:40} Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Question:- Let us guess how old a 'member of the Jewish ruling council' might be ....on average. 30 years? 40Years? More?
Question:- Let us guess in what year Jesus was arrested during that last Passover week. 27-33AD? Take your pick?
Question:- In what year do the researchers guess that the gospel of John was written? 100-110AD ? Take your pick?
Question:- How old would Nicodemus have been if and when he wrote the gospel of John? 100-120 years of age? Take your pick?

Question:- Since researchers tell us that the grammar and diction used in the gospel of John was 'poor', (can I say?) might an ancient man who had been a 'member of the Jewish ruling council' have been better educated than this author?

QED...... possibly?

 

[RJM]

{3:1} There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

{19:39} And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight. ]{19:40} Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Question:- Let us guess how old a 'member of the Jewish ruling council' might be ....on average. 30 years? 40Years? More?
Question:- Let us guess in what year Jesus was arrested during that last Passover week. 27-33AD? Take your pick?
Question:- In what year do the researchers guess that the gospel of John was written? 100-110AD ? Take your pick?
Question:- How old would Nicodemus have been if and when he wrote the gospel of John? 100-120 years of age? Take your pick?

Question:- Since researchers tell us that the grammar and diction used in the gospel of John was 'poor', (can I say?) might an ancient man who had been a 'member of the Jewish ruling council' have been better educated than this author?

QED...... possibly?

Thank you. Could the passage below seem to indicate that the author of John's Gospel may have been a very old man who outlived all the others?

So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

 

[RJM]

From Wikipedia (I know)

John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier … It most likely arose within a "Johannine Community" and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation as a single corpus of Johannine literature albeit not from the same author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

 

[badger]

Thank you. Could the passage below seem to indicate that the author of John's Gospel may have been a very old man who outlived all the others?

So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

So..... do you think that this person is still alive?

 

[badger]

From Wikipedia (I know)

John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier …

Any reports about Jesus definitely originate back to/from his time, mostly by memory or by oral tradition. Ergo........ circa 30ad

It most likely arose within a "Johannine Community" and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation as a single corpus of Johannine literature albeit not from the same author.

Written by 'authors', from memories within a 'community'.

Sorted.....

 

[RJM]

So..... do you think that this person is still alive?

Ok, interesting.
May I refer you over to this thread
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20134/
If you take a gecko at the opening posts, it will give an idea of my drift ...

 

[RJM]

More from the Wikipedia article. I apologise for using wiki here, but hope it is acceptable, as a general outline, under the circumstances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

"John 21:22 references a disciple whom Jesus loved and John 21:24–25 says: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true; but there are also many other things that Jesus did; if all of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

Early Christian tradition, first found in Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), identified this disciple with John the Apostle , together with the Gnostics, such as Ptolemy who in his letter to Flora quotes the Gospel and attributes it to an Apostle without giving names and Basilides who quotes John 1:9 and considers it a gospel, but most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis or hold it only tenuously – for example, the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.

These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel. Most scholars estimate the final form of the text to be around AD 90–110.

Given its complex history there may have been more than one place of composition, and while the author was familiar with Jewish customs and traditions, his frequent clarification of these implies that he wrote for a mixed Jewish/Gentile or Jewish context outside Palestine .

The author may have drawn on a "signs source" (a collection of miracles) for chapters 1-12, a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, and a "sayings source" for the discourses, but these hypotheses are much debated; He seems to have known some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order, but key terms from those gospels are absent or nearly so, implying that if he did know them he felt free to write independently.

The Hebrew scriptures were an important source, with 14 direct quotations (versus 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke), and their influence is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included, but the majority of John's direct quotations do not agree exactly with any known version of the Jewish scriptures …"

 

[badger]

"John 21:22 references a disciple whom Jesus loved and John 21:24–25 says: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true; but there are also many other things that Jesus did; if all of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

This proposes that G-John was not written by a disciple, because it declares that 'we know that his testimony....etc'

Early Christian tradition, first found in Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), identified this disciple with John the Apostle , together with the Gnostics, such as Ptolemy who in his letter to Flora quotes the Gospel and attributes it to an Apostle without giving names and Basilides who quotes John 1:9 and considers it a gospel, but most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis or hold it only tenuously – for example, the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.

Unlikely to have been disciple John.

These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying",

the testimony of a disciple.....

as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage),

...collected preserved and reshaped..... certainly.

and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel. Most scholars estimate the final form of the text to be around AD 90–110.

........ rearranged...... certainly.

Given its complex history there may have been more than one place of composition, and while the author was familiar with Jewish customs and traditions, his frequent clarification of these implies that he wrote for a mixed Jewish/Gentile or Jewish context outside Palestine .

It was written for a Gentile audience and was most anti-Semitic in nature.

The author may have drawn on a "signs source" (a collection of miracles) for chapters 1-12, a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, and a "sayings source" for the discourses, but these hypotheses are much debated; He seems to have known some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order, but key terms from those gospels are absent or nearly so, implying that if he did know them he felt free to write independently.

.................felt free to write independently...........

The Hebrew scriptures were an important source, with 14 direct quotations (versus 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke), and their influence is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included, but the majority of John's direct quotations do not agree exactly with any known version of the Jewish scriptures …"

....... do not agree exactly.........



Yes.

 

[Thomas]

I've had a look, but can see no scholarship on the idea that Nicodemus wrote John – intriguing, though.

On my course, we spent some time discussing a likely source for the original material, as well as contra opinions by scholars, but whichever way you add it up, John always comes out as the strongest contender as the source of the original materials.

We don't know how old John was when he died. We know he was active in Jerusalem, and he and Pater made a pair. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were students of John, and Papias knew Polycarp, and listened to stories of John's preaching from him, so that would have to be weighed up.

A couple of points: John was a fisherman, but from a very successful family, it would seem, so he could well be well-educated.

As for his anti-semitism, I've seen some defence of that, suggesting he was writings against certain hard-line Jewish contenders who were antagonistic towards Christians, and maybe in that context his Jewish hearers would realise he wasn't 'tarring them all with the same brush'.

The argument against John has always been of a 'High Christology', which I think is largely out-of-date now, as Paul's Christology is equally 'High' and that we can date to the 50s!

Personally I think John the Disciple provides the source material.

 

[badger]

I've had a look, but can see no scholarship on the idea that Nicodemus wrote John – intriguing, though.

Fair enough.

On my course, we spent some time discussing a likely source for the original material, as well as contra opinions by scholars, but whichever way you add it up, John always comes out as the strongest contender as the source of the original materials.

I don't think that John wrote that gospel, but I don't think that the author/s were the sources of the material which I thinks was gathered from 'all over'....many different sources.

We don't know how old John was when he died. We know he was active in Jerusalem, and he and Pater made a pair. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were students of John, and Papias knew Polycarp, and listened to stories of John's preaching from him, so that would have to be weighed up.

And that suggests that John lived in to the 2nd century. I don't expect that the lifetime of the average Gennesaret boatman would have been more than 50ish years.

A couple of points: John was a fisherman, but from a very successful family, it would seem, so he could well be well-educated.

Zebedee was one very canny person to survive in business on Gennesaret, but his kids would have been taught to be fishermen, I reckon.

As for his anti-semitism, I've seen some defence of that, suggesting he was writings against certain hard-line Jewish contenders who were antagonistic towards Christians, and maybe in that context his Jewish hearers would realise he wasn't 'tarring them all with the same brush'.

The best defence for that is that the disciple John never did write a word of that.....about the Jews scheming and plotting against Jesus.

Personally I think John the Disciple provides the source material.

I acknowledge your opinion, but in that case he either forgot about or missed out the most astonishing and important event in his lifetime, one which Cephas wrote about as the centre of his faith.

 

[RJM]

Zebedee was one very canny person to survive in business on Gennesaret, but his kids would have been taught to be fishermen, I reckon.

It's a rare father who does not wish more for his sons. It's entirely likely Zebedee as a self-made man of means would want education and progress for his sons

 

[RJM]

don't think that John wrote that gospel, but I don't think that the author/s were the sources of the material which I thinks was gathered from 'all over'....many different sources.

The fact the Gospel of John emerged from a 'Johannine' school means John• had a lot to do with the content and philosophy. John• would not be a negligible part of the process?

• Or substitute 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' because that person's name did not have to be John.

 

[RJM]

The best defence for that is that the disciple John never did write a word of that.....about the Jews scheming and plotting against Jesus

Nicodemus as a Pharisee and :leader of his people: disgusted by the whole bloody business of the crucifixion of an innocent man, might do it?

 

[badger]

It's a rare father who does not wish more for his sons. It's entirely likely Zebedee as a self-made man of means would want education and progress for his sons

I doubt that very much, that Zebedee wanted his sons to leave his boats. I've known fishermen all my life and their sons almost always took their boats over and carried on the family business.
??

 

[badger]

Nicodemus as a Pharisee and :leader of his people: disgusted by the whole bloody business of the crucifixion of an innocent man, might do it?

G-John was the kernel for anti-Semitism for two millenia, I think.
I don't think that 'the Jews' moved a finger against Jesus, just the Priesthood.

 

[RJM]

-John was the kernel for anti-Semitism for two millenia, I think.

It was abused in that way

don't think that 'the Jews' moved a finger against Jesus, just the Priesthood.

I think the term is used in the sense of the priesthood.(the leaders)

 

[badger]

I think the term is used in the sense of the priesthood.(the leaders)

I don't think so....!
By the time that G-John was written the new church had picked up so many policies and cultures that were nothing to do with what Jesus and his following were after at all. The new church was for the gentiles, I think.

 

[RJM]

I think perhaps the Gospel of John centres around the inner teachings that Jesus imparted to the elect few, including Nicodemus -- the disciple whom Jesus loved.

In that sense the Gospel of John may be what Jesus was really about as a spiritual teacher of the ancient wisdom of inner alchemy -- being born again of water and the holy spirit -- and expressed by Nicodemus having a (very) long life, as the source of the Johannine writings incuding probably Revelations

 

[RJM]

The vital life energy that in nature is directed outward into material attachments and reproduction, is channelled inward and upward towards the spirit -- all the teachings and the symbolism of the crucifixion and the resurrection. The disciple whom Jesus loved understood it.

A camel through the eye of a needle; a person must choose either God or mammon etc, are how the teachings reach to the ordinary 'householder' people diluted as social mores for good living ...

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20134/page-3#post-360288