Jump to content

Authorship of the Johannine works

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mpolo (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 10 November 2004 (→References). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Five books of the New Testament are traditionally attributed to John the Apostle; however, especially since the rise of higher criticism, the question of the authorship of the Johannine works has been disputed. Even in the early church, the authorship of all five by one author was questioned. Today there are supporters of a wide range of viewpoints on the issue, from affirming the authorship by the Apostle, to affirming the authorship by another author (usually called "John", for convenience, to various theories of group authorship or of different authors for different books.

The Johannine works are the Gospel of John, The first, second,and third epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. All five show certain similarities in theological background, but also certain differences, leading to the current debate.

History of use of the Johannine works

In the first two centuries of Christianity, the Gospel of Matthew was the primary instrument for catechesis, and there are relatively few references to the Johannine works. Since the time of Ireneus, the Gospel of John became a cornerstone of baptismal catechesis in Rome. In the First Council of Nicaea, the Gospel was one of the major supports for the high Christology proposed by the council fathers. The Gospel was always considered the last to be written, traditionally given a date between 90 and 100, though modern scholars often suggest an even later date.

Origen, Augustine, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria all provide ancient commentaries on the Johannine works, with those of Augustine being the most numerous. In the Middle Ages, important commentaries were written by Rupert of Deutz and Thomas Aquinas.

Before the rise of higher criticism, the question of authorship of the five works was hardly breached. However, the decree of the Council of Rome (382) differentiates the Gospel, first epistle and Book of Revelation, which it attributes to John the Apostle, and the second and third epistle, which it attributes to "John, a priest".

History of critical scholarship

The era of critical scholarship on the works opened with K.G. Bretschneider's 1820 work on the topic of Johannine Authorship. Bretschneider called into question the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, and even stated that the author could not have come from Palestine. He reasoned that since the vision of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John was very different from that in the Synoptic Gospels, its author could not have been an eyewitness to the events. Bretschneider cited an apologetic character in John, indicating a later date of composition.

Following from the philosophy of Hegel, F.C. Baur negated any historical value for the fourth Gospel. He stated that it was solely a work of synthesis of thesis-antithesis according to the Hegelian model -- synthesis between the thesis of Judeo-Christianity (represented by Peter) and the antithesis of Gentile Christianity (represented by Paul). He also cited a synthesis with the opposing forces of Gnosticism in the epistles. As such, he assigned a date of 170 to the Gospel. Many modern critics follow him in this late dating.

The Gospel

Literary criticism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

Although the critical movement reached almost complete agreement about the two-source hypothesis for the Synoptic Gospels, no agreement has been reached about the literary sources for the Johannine works. A perhaps typical example of a critical theory of the development of these was provided by J. Wellhausen in 1908. He hypothesized a base document which was heavily modified by a later editor. He claimed to have been able to separate the base document from the editings, praising the base document, and condemning the later editor for his intrusion. Other critical scholars, such as E. Schwarz, listed dozens of "apories" or indications of rupture in the narratives and discourses.

Criticism in the early twentieth century centered on the idea of the Logos (word), which was perceived as a Hellenistic concept. Thus H. J. Holtzmann hypothesized a dependence of the work on Philo Judaeus. Albert Schweitzer considered the work to be a Hellenized version of Pauline mysticism, while R. Reitzenstein sought the work's origin in Egyptian and Persian mystery religions.

Rudolf Bultmann took a different approach to the work. He hypothesized a Gnostic origin (specifically Mandaeism) for the work. He noted similarities with the Pauline corpus, but attributed this to a common Hellenistic background. He claimed that the many contrasts in the Gospel, between light and darkness, truth and lies, above and below, and so on, show a tendency toward dualism, explained by the Gnostic roots of the work. Despite the Gnostic origin, Bultmann commended the author for several improvements over Gnosticism, such as the Judeo-Christian view of creation and the demytholigizing of the role of the Redeemer. He saw the Gospel as an investigation into a God who was wholly other and transcendant, seeing no place in the vision of the author for a Church or sacraments.

Bultmann's analysis is still widely applied in German-speaking countries, although with many corrections and discussions. Wide-ranging replies have been made to this analysis. Today, most Christian exegetes reject much of Bultmann's theory, but accept certain of his intuitions. For instance, J. Blank uses Bultmann in his discussion of the Last Judgment and W. Thüsing uses him to discuss the elevation and glorification of Jesus.

In the English-speaking world, Bultmann has had less effect. Instead, these scholars tended to continue in the investigation of the Hellenistic and Platonistic theories, generally returning to theories closer to the traditional interpretation. By way of example, G.H.C. McGregor (1928) and W.F. Howard (1943) belong to this group.

More recent criticism

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites -- light and dark, truth and lies -- that the Gospel contains. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and since John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.

The revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by J.A.T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information relativized the question of authorship. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation. The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.

In any case, the "Qumran fever" that was raised by the discovery of the scrolls is gradually dying down, with theories of Gnosticism beginning to be proposed again, especially in Germany.

Historicity

With the exception of Renan's Vida de Jesús (Life of Jesus) of 1863, which praised the historical and geographical details present in the Gospel, until the twentieth century, virtually all critical scholars denied any historical value of the work. Seven particular theses of these scholars are mentioned: first, that the tradition of authorship by John the Apostle was created a posteriori to justify the book's authority; second, that the book does not proceed even indirectly from an eyewitness account; third, that the book was intended as an apologetic work, not a history; fourth, that the Synoptic tradition was used and adapted very freely by the author; fifth, that these deviations are not due to the application of other sources unknown to the authors of the Synoptic gospels; sixth, that the discourses in the Gospel express not Jesus's words, but those of the evangelist; and therefore, that the fourth Gospel has no value in supplementing the Synoptics.

In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are pointed to. In the second chapter, when Jesus cleanses the Temple, the Jews tell him that the Temple has been under construction for forty six years. That construction had begun in 20 BC under Herod the Great, putting the cleansing of the Temple in AD 27, precisely when modern scholarship (see Chronology of Jesus) places the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Similarly, John's chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic, because the Synoptic Gospels would have the trial before the Sanhedrin occuring on the first day of the Passover, which was a day of rest.

Authorship

Traditional view

According to J.N. Sanders (1943) and C.K. Barrett (1955), the first persons to use the Gospel of John were Gnostics in the late second century to early third century. They cited similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip. This lead to their theory that the author was himself a Gnostic. More recent discoveries, however, including papyrus 52, dating to 150, have shown that the text spread rapidly through Egypt, which would not be expected for a Gnostic text, since the Egyptian church of the era was fighting against Gnosticism.

The first certain witness to Johannine theology in the Fathers of the Church is in Ignatius of Antioch, whose Letter to the Philippians is founded on John 3:8 and alludes to John 10:7-9 and 14:6. This would indicate that the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignatius' death (probably 107). By the mid-second century, Polycarp of Smyrna used expressions from the letters of John.

The earliest testimony to the author is that of Papias, preserved in Eusebius's history of the Church. This text is, however, rather obscure. Eusebius says that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Priest, with the Gospel coming from the Apostle and the Book of Revelation from the priest.

Ireneus's witness represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived. He was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle. He states inequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel.

As mentioned before, the text was spread rapidly through Egypt, and various bits of legendary information are preserved. Clement of Alexandria mentions John the Apostle's missionary activity in Asia Minor, and continues, "As for John, the last, upon seeing that in the Gospels they had told the corporal matters, supported by his disciples and inspired by the Holy Spirit, he wrote a spiritual Gospel." (Quis dives salvabitur 42,1). In Alexandria, the authorship of the Gospel and the first epistle was never questioned.

Rome was the home to the only early rejection of the fourth Gospel. The adversaries of Montanism were responsible. Ireneus says that these persons tried to suppress the teaching about the Holy Spirit in order to put down Montanism, and as a result denied the authorship of the Gospel and its authority. This group, who were followers of the priest Caius, were called the "alogoi" ("without the Word" or "without reason") by Epiphanius.

Criticism of the traditional sources

The documentation of the traditional authorship of the Gospel has certain weak points that have been exploited by critics. Ireneus is accused of having made Papias into a disciple of John the Apostle to provide support for his own theories -- Eusebius later showed that Papias was a disciple of John the Priest. But even Eusebius does not escape without criticism. His citing of John the Priest seems to be motivated by his arguments for the authorship of the Book of Revelation. Ireneus's memories of Polycarp's testimony are childhood memories, and lack clarity. For instance, he cites relationships between Polycarp and a "John", but doesn't specify which John.

The Gospel of John states in its text that it was written by the "disciple whom Jesus loved", so that a great deal of effort has been put into determining who this person might be. Traditionally he is identified as John the Apostle, since otherwise, one of the most important apostles in the other Gospels would be entirely missing in the fourth gospel. However, critical scholars have suggested some other possibilities. Flison and Sanders suggest Lazarus, since John 11:31 and 36 specifically indicates that Jesus "loved" him. However, the fact that Lazarus is never mentioned in the Galilean ministry, and that there is no widespread tradition of Lazarus's apostolic activity after Jesus's death, throws this theory into doubt. Parker suggested that this disciple might be John Mark; nonetheless, the Acts of the Apostles indicate that John Mark was very young and a late-comer as a disciple. J. Colson suggested that "John" was a priest in Jerusalem, explaining the priestly mentality in the fourth gospel. R. Schnackenburg suggested that "John" was an otherwise unknown resident of Jerusalem who was in Jesus's circle of friends. Finally, a few authors, such as Loisy and Bultmann, see "John" as a purely symbolic creation, a psuedonym for the group of authors.

Most critical scholars today conclude (with the tradition) that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was in fact John the Apostle; however, there remains the question of whether this apostle was actually the author of the work. Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised. First of all, the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, requiring a good level of education. But the Synoptic Gospels are united in identifying John as a fisherman, whom one would not picture as well-educated. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". Against this objection, can be noted that John was not a hired fisherman, but a middle-class fisherman, whose family owned its own boat; such persons were not necessarily illiterate. Another response to the objection is provided by the numerous cases in the history of mysticism where deep theological insights are reached by a person of common background, such as the illiterate poet Caedmon, as recorded by Bede.

A second objection to John the Apostle's authorship is the importance that he gives to the traditions of Jerusalem, which would be unusual for a Galilean. The response usually given to this objection is that the knowledge of Jerusalem shown in the text is no more than a yearly pilgrim might pick up. John's interest in Jerusalem seems to be totally dependent on his interest in Jesus.

Finally, it is objected that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is not mentioned before the Last Supper, so that this disciple would not have been an eyewitness to the earlier events of the Gospel. However, tradition has identified this disciple with the unnamed disciple of the first chapter. The structure of the Gospel also partially explains the "disappearance" of the disciples from the center of the action. The first twelve chapters, the "Book of Signs", concerns Jesus's preaching and miracles among the Jewish people, while the relation of the Last Supper concentrates on his relation to the disciples in particular.

A large portion of scholars therefore accept a connection with John the Apostle for the fourth Gospel. Most posit a community of disciples around the apostle that gave final form to the work. In particular, chapters 21 and 22 are very different stylistically from the main body of the Gospel, and are thought to be later additions. R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor.

First Epistle of John

The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel, so that the question of authorship is often connected to the question of authorship of the gospel. There are several turns of phrase that occur only in the Gospel and First Epistle and nowhere else in the New Testament, such as "have a sin", "do the truth", "remain" in some mystical state (in the Father, in the Son, in my love), and so forth. Both works have a very Semitic flavor to the Greek -- many sentences begin with "all" or with "and", use of "literary inclusion" (the repetition of a phrase to indicate that the material between the inclusions belongs together), minimal use of the Greek ilative particles. Both works have the same basic concepts that are being explored: the Word, the Only Begotten, the incarnation, the passing from death to life, the truth and lies, etc.

The book was not among those whose canonicity was in doubt, according to Eusebius; however, it is not included in an ancient Syrian canon. Theodore of Mopseuesta also presented a negative opinion toward its canonicity. Outside of the Syrian world, however, the book has many early witnesses, and appears to have been widely accepted.

Given the similarity with the Gospel, most critical scholars assign the same authorship to the epistle that they assign to the Gospel. Most refer to a Johannine school from which the letter stemmed, possibly even from the hand of the apostle himself.

Second and third epistles

While tradition normally assigns the second and third epistles to John the Apostle, the fact that the author identifies himself as "the presbyter" (or "the priest") cast doubt on this assignment, even within the early Church. There are enough literary and theological similarities with the first epistle that these two are normally assumed to have stemmed from the same circle of theologians. Thus most scholars assume that some personality in the circle of disciples of John was the author of these books. The similarities between the two books make it unlikely that they have two separate authors. This hypothetical author is usually called "John the Priest" to distinguish him from the apostle.

Revelation

The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself as "John", so that the book has been traditionally credited to John the Apostle. Evidence of this identification is found as early as Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon. Other witnesses to this tradition are Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertulian.

The first doubts about the apostolic authorship of the book came in the third century. The priest Caius of Rome (part of the "alogoi") identified the author as the heretic Caerinth. Dionysius of Alexandria rejected apostolic authorship, but accepted the book's canonicity. More radically, in the fourth century, much of the Eastern Church rejected the book's canonicity. This viewpoint was shared by several Fathers of the Church, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianezen, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret. It was also rejected in Syria.

The question of canonicity was reopened in the West by the Reformers. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, reaffirmed its canonicity. Most Christians today accept the book as part of the canon.

There are various affinities between the book and the fourth Gospel: use of allegory, symbolism, and similar metaphors, such as "living water", "shepherd", "lamb", and "manna". However, the differences between the two are perhaps even more notable. The Book of Revelation does not go into several typically Johannine themes, such as light, darkness, truth, love, and "the world" in a negative sense. The escatology of the two works is also very different.

Precise identification of an author is near impossible given the lack of evidence. Nonetheless, the work is normally assigned to the circle of disciples around the Apostle John. The date of composition is widely disputed. Ireneus cited the end of the reign of Domitian (this is repeated by Eusebius and Jerome). This is the most common opinion among those modern critics who consider the work to have been written as a whole. Nonetheless, Epiphanius cited composition in the reign of Claudius, and the Muratorian canon suggests composition at the time of Nero.

Some exegetes (Touilleux, Gelin, Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespatian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.


See Also

References

  • Denzinger, Heinrich and Rahner, Karl. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum. 28th Edition. Herder: Freiburg, 1952.
  • George, Augustin and Grelot, Pierre. Introducción Crítica al Nuevo Testamento. Herder: Barcelona, 1992. ISBN 8425412773
  • Wijngaards, John. Handbook to the Gospels. ISBN 0892831367
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works&oldid=7295520"