View source for Authorship of the Johannine works

{{Short description|none}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}}
{{John}}

The '''authorship of the [[Johannine literature|Johannine works]]''' (the [[Gospel of John]], the [[Johannine epistles]], and the [[Book of Revelation]]) has been debated by [[Biblical studies|biblical scholars]] since at least the 2nd century AD.<ref>F. L. Cross, ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'', (New York: [[Oxford University Press]], 1997), 45</ref> The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings.

Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to [[John the Apostle]],<ref name="harris"/> only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,{{sfn|Lindars|Edwards|Court|2000|p=41}} and most conclude that he wrote none of them.<ref name="harris"/><ref name="Kelly2012"/><ref name="Harris 1980 p.">{{cite book | last=Harris | first=Stephen L. | title=Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Guide and Reference | publisher=Mayfield Publishing Company | year=1980 | isbn=978-0-87484-472-6 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TGJKeHOmGhwC | access-date=26 January 2022 | page=296}}</ref> Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, most scholars agree that all three epistles are written by the same author<ref name="books.google.com">{{cite book|last1=Kruger|first1=Michael J.|title=Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books|date=30 April 2012|page=272|publisher=Crossway |isbn=9781433530814|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0blebRF0AZ0C&pg=PA272}}</ref><ref name="The Gospel and Epistles of John: A">{{cite book|last1=Brown|first1=Raymond E.|title=The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary|year=1988|page=105|publisher=Liturgical Press |isbn=9780814612835|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JIM0Q0bjgYkC&pg=PA105}}</ref><ref name="The Epistles of John">{{cite book|last1=Marshall|first1=I. Howard|title=The Epistles of John|date=14 July 1978|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |isbn=9781467422321|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OWJyCgAAQBAJ&q=john+epistles+most+scholars&pg=PT38}}</ref> or [[school of thought]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Méndez|first=Hugo|date=2020-03-01|title=Did the Johannine Community Exist?|journal=Journal for the Study of the New Testament|volume=42|issue=3|pages=350–374|doi=10.1177/0142064X19890490|s2cid=216330794|issn=|doi-access=free}}</ref>

With respect to the date and location of authorship of these writings, there is general agreement that all four works probably originated from the same [[Johannine community]].<ref>Ehrman, pp.&nbsp;178–9.</ref> That community is traditionally and plausibly either attributed to [[Early centers of Christianity#Asia Minor|Ephesus]] or [[Early centers of Christianity#Damascus|Damascus]], {{circa|90–110}} AD.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Brown |first=Raymond E. |author-link=Raymond E. Brown |title=Introduction to the New Testament |year=1997 |publisher=Anchor Bible |page=[https://archive.org/details/introductiontone00brow_0/page/334 334] |location=New York |isbn=0-385-24767-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontone00brow_0/page/334 }}</ref>

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, [[John of Patmos]], {{circa|95}}, with some parts possibly dating to [[Nero]]'s reign in the early 60s.<ref name="harris"/><ref name=Ehrman>{{Cite book|last=Ehrman |first=Bart D.|author-link=Bart D. Ehrman |title=The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford |location=New York |isbn=0-19-515462-2 |page=468 }}</ref>

[[File:El Greco 034.jpg|thumb|[[El Greco]]'s {{circa|1605}} painting ''Saint John the Evangelist'' shows the traditional author of the Johannine works as a young man.]]

==Early use and attribution of the Johannine works==
[[File:St-john-patmos.jpg|thumb|right|220px|''Saint John on Patmos'' by [[Hans Baldung Grien]], 1511. ]]

===Attestation===
The first supposed witness to Johannine theology among the Fathers of the Church is in [[Ignatius of Antioch]], whose Letter to the Philippians some claim references John 3:8<ref>{{bibleverse|John|3:8}}</ref> and alludes to John 10:7-9<ref>{{bibleverse|John|10:7-9}}</ref> and John 14:6,<ref>{{bibleverse|John|14:6}}</ref> but none of these are direct quotations or contain information exclusive to John. [[Polycarp|Polycarp of Smyrna]] quotes about the "[[antichrist]]" in his [[Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians|Epistle to the Phillipians]] 7:1, a sure reference from the letters of John because the antichrist doctrine is not found in the textual record before the Johannine letters. [[Justin Martyr]] also alludes to ideas in John, though this reference is not certain, so the dating of John is not settled.<ref>[http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml Polycarp] at NTCanon.org</ref><ref name=JustinNTC>[http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml Justin Martyr] at NTCanon.org</ref>

The earliest testimony to the author was that of [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias]], preserved in fragmentary quotes in [[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]]'s history of the Church. This text is consequently rather obscure. Eusebius says that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, with the Gospel assigned to the Apostle and the [[Book of Revelation]] to the Presbyter.<ref>Eusebius, ''[[Church History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'' 3.39.4-6</ref>

[[Irenaeus]]'s witness based on Papias represents the tradition in [[Ephesus]], where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived.<ref>Irenaeus ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus haereses]]'' 3.11 = Eusebius ''Historia ecclesiastica'' 5.8.4</ref> Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle. According to many scholars, he states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel. (Other scholars note, however, that Irenaeus consistently refers to the author of the gospel, as well as of Revelation, as "the disciple of the Lord," whereas he refers to the others as "apostles." And so Irenaeus appears to distinguish John, the author of the fourth gospel, from John the Apostle.) Koester rejects the reference of Ignatius of Antioch as referring to the Gospel and cites Irenaeus as the first to use it.<ref>[[Helmut Koester]]. ''Ancient Christian Gospels''. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press. 1990. p. 246</ref>

For some time it was common practice to assert that the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]], which contains a small portion of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, demonstrated that the text of the gospel spread rapidly through Egypt in the second century. However, more recent scholarship has shown the fragment may date from as late as the third or fourth century, rather than the second century, as was previously supposed.<ref>Don Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," ''New Testament Studies'' 57 (2011), 571-582.</ref>

[[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."<ref>Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History 14.2 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xiv.html</ref> [[Origen]], when asked how John had placed the cleansing of the Temple first rather than last, responded, "John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells the truth spiritually."<ref>Origen, ''Commentary on John'' 10.4.6.</ref> In [[Alexandria]], the authorship of the Gospel and the first epistle was never questioned. [[Bruce Metzger]] stated "One finds in Clement's work citations of all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John."<ref>Metzger, Bruce M. ''The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance''. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987: p. 131.</ref>

Rome was the home to the only early rejection of the fourth Gospel. The adversaries of [[Montanism]] were responsible. Irenaeus 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. Later [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] called this group, who were followers of the priest Caius, the [[Alogi]] in a wordplay between "without the Word" and "without reason".

===Quotations===
The gospel was not widely quoted until late in the 2nd century.<ref>Craig Keener, ''A Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume 1'', (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 93.</ref> [[Justin Martyr]] is probably the first [[Church Father]] to quote the Gospel of John.<ref>Craig Keener, ''A Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume 1'', (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 93 notes that, "Earliest Christian tradition seems to have exercised some ambivalence towards this Gospel, however; it is not recognized in the Roman fathers until the late second century." Keener also notes that "it is possible that he [Justin Martyr] cites instead an agraphon from pre-Johannine tradition or a subsequent tradition based on John."</ref> Some scholars conclude that in antiquity John was probably considered less important than the [[synoptic gospels|synoptics]].<ref>''C.H. Dodd, Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel'', (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), 13; J.W. Pryor, "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," ''Second Cent'' 9, no. 3 (1992): 153–169; Keener, ''The Gospel of John'', 94 notes in one of the footnotes something quite interesting, "Although the analogy carries little weight, my first book cited Matthew over 150 times, Luke 13 times, 1 Peter 9 times, and John twice, though John was my dissertation area."</ref> Walter Bauer suggests:
{{blockquote|Can it be a coincidence that immediately after Justin, the enemy of heretics who took aim at the [[Valentinians]] (''Dial.'' 35. 6), we note the appearance in Italy-Rome of two representatives of this latter school who especially treasure the Fourth Gospel&nbsp;– namely Ptolemy and Heracleon (Hillolytus ''Ref.'' 6. 35)? To be sure, Justin's disciple Tatian placed the Gospel of John on the same level as the synoptics, but he also broke with the church on account of profound differences in faith&nbsp;– poisoned, so Irenaeus thought, by the Valentinians and [[Marcion]] (AH 1. 28. 1 [<nowiki>=</nowiki>1.26.1]).<ref>Walter Bauer, ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'' (Philadelphia: 1971), 206</ref>}}

One reason for this 'orthodox ambivalence' was [[gnostic]] acceptance of the fourth gospel.<ref>Keener, ''The Gospel of John'', 94; see also John Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in ''Anchor Bible Commentary'' David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 notes that, "In its defense against Gnosticism the Church embraced the Gospel of John and attempted to demonstrate that the gospel affirmed the 'Orthodox Christian faith.' The affiliation of the gospel with gnostic Christian beliefs led some, however, to reject it along with Revelation, as Irenaeus witnesses (''haer.'' 3.2.12</ref> The early Gnostic use is referred to by [[Irenaeus]], [[Hippolytus of Rome|Hippolytus]] and [[Origen]] in quoted commentary made on John by the Gnostics [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]], [[Basilides]]<ref>{{cite wikisource|wslink=Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 11|The Refutation of All Heresies, Book VII|author=Hippolytus|translator=John Henry MacMahon}}</ref> and [[Heracleon]]. In the quote below Irenaeus argues against the gnostic heresy from his book ''Against Heresies'':
{{blockquote|For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their [gnostic] hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the Æons], and was of later date than the Word.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103109.htm ''Against Heresies'' 1.9.2., see]</ref>}}

Several church fathers of the 2nd century never quoted John, but the earliest extant written commentary on any book of the New Testament was that written on John by Heracleon, a disciple of the gnostic [[Valentinius|Valentinus]].<ref>[http://www.gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm Fragments of Heracleon's ''Commentary on John'' can be found here]</ref>

The following table shows the number of times various church fathers cited John compared to the [[synoptic gospels]].<ref>Taken from {{cite journal |first=Robert M. |last=Grant |title=The Fourth Gospel and the Church |journal=[[Harvard Theological Review]] |volume=35 |issue=2 |year=1942 |pages=95–116 |doi=10.1017/S0017816000005216 |s2cid=163661026 }}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"px
|-
! '''Gospel'''
! Barn.
! Did.
! Ign.
! Poly.
! Herm.
! II Clem.
! Papias
! Basilides
|-
| ''Synoptics''
| 1?
| 1?
| 7(+4?)
| 1
| 0
| 1(+3?)
| 2
| 1
|-
| ''John or Epistles''
| 0
| 0
| 2?
| 1
| 0
| 0
| ?
| 1
|}

{| class="wikitable"px
|-
! '''Gospel'''
! Marcion
! Justin
! Valentinus
! Hegesip.
! Ptolem.
! Melito
! Apollin.
! Athenag.
|-
| ''Synoptics''
| Luke
| 170
| 1
| 3?
| 4
| 4
| 1
| 13
|-
| ''John or Epistles''
| 0
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 4
| 1
| 0
|}

==Gospel of John==
[[File:St. John the Evangelist (Rabbula Gospels).png|thumb|170px|A [[Syriac Christianity|Syriac Christian]] rendition of St. John the Evangelist, from the [[Rabbula Gospels]], 6th century.]]
The authorship of the [[Gospel of John]], the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]].

=== Overview ===
A summary of the proposed candidates is as follows:
* The [[John the Apostle|apostle John, son of Zebedee]] – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.<ref name="harris"/><ref name="Kelly2012"/>
* [[John of Patmos]], the author of the [[Book of Revelation]] (alias the Apocalypse of John) – mainstream scholars conclude that John of Patmos did not write the Gospel of John due to a wide range of differences in eschatology, language, and tone between the two texts.<ref name="ODCC Revelation, Book of"/>
* [[John the Presbyter]] – an obscure early church figure mentioned in the writings of [[Papias of Hierapolis]].
* [[John the Evangelist]] – apart from being a potential nickname for any of the figures mentioned above, he could be an otherwise unknown person called John who wrote the Fourth Gospel.
* The [[Disciple whom Jesus loved]] (or Beloved Disciple) – an unnamed person referenced several times in the Fourth Gospel itself. Some theologians and scholars have, by way of elimination, identified this disciple as one of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus, usually John, son of Zebedee. Other scholars point out that verse 21:24 indicates that the author is someone other than this disciple, and that the author has merely used a (written or oral) report, allegedly from this disciple, as a source for the writing of the Fourth Gospel.<ref name="EhrmanTNT8"/>
* A hypothetical "[[Johannine community]]" – a number of different authors who wrote the Fourth Gospel together, none of whom were necessarily named 'John'.
* An unknown author – some scholars have concluded that, since the Fourth Gospel is anonymous, none of the proposed candidates are plausible (there is no reason to assume he was actually named 'John'), and that because no new evidence is likely to emerge, the real author will remain unknown and unnamed. At most, the author is merely referred to as 'John' (and the Fourth Gospel as 'Gospel of John') for the sake of convention, a placeholder name for an otherwise unknown person.<ref name="EhrmanTNT8">{{Cite web |url=https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/new-testament |title=8: John: Jesus the Man from Heaven |author=Bart D. Ehrman|work=The New Testament |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |date=2002 |access-date=7 July 2018}}</ref>{{rp|at=31:45}}
* [[Cerinthus]] – A group of Christians, referred to as [[Alogi]] by [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]], credit Cerinthus with writing the Gospel of John and rejected this Gospel, while also accepting the [[Synoptic Gospels]] and maintaining a more-or-less standard [[Christology]] and Orthodox form of worship. According to [[Dionysius bar Salibi]] citing a lost work by [[Hippolytus of Rome]], the Alogi were led by a man named Caius. The name Alogi was applied to them by their enemies, and what little is known about them comes from those who considered them heretics.  The name Alogi is a play on words, meaning illogical in Biblical Greek and referring both to their beliefs as being illogical and a rejection of the Logos of John's Gospel.<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Church History (Book III)|chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm|translator=Arthur Cushman McGiffert|title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series|volume=1|editor-first1=Philip|editor-last1=Schaff|editor-first2=Henry|editor-last2=Wace|author=Eusebius|location=Buffalo, New York|publisher=Christian Literature Publishing Co.|year=1890}}</ref>
* [[Lazarus of Bethany]]

===Dating===
The Gospel of John is considered to be the last of the four canonical Gospels to be written. Most modern scholars date it to between 90 and 100{{nbsp}}AD,<ref name="Morris1995"/> although a minority suggest an even later date.<ref>Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 suggests that, "John's very divergence from the synoptics had already led to is relatively slower reception in the broader church until it could be explained in relation to them."</ref> The Fourth Gospel may also have been written later as it was penned for a smaller group within the Johannine community, and was not circulated widely until a later date.<ref>Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 notes also that "our early second-century papyrus fragment P52, discovered in Egypt, probably limits the value of this second proposal&nbsp;... However much the Fourth Gospel may have been directed toward a specific historical situation, it was only a matter of time before it began to circulate beyond its originally intended readership."</ref> However, claims of authorship that date much later than 100{{nbsp}}AD have been called into question due to the  [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]], a fragment of the gospel found in Egypt that was probably written around 125{{nbsp}}AD.<ref>Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 Nevertheless, most biblical scholars continue to favour the earlier dating, though the possibility of a later date is not entirely discounted; John Rylands Library continues to maintain Roberts's assessment of the date of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, that it "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D."</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/|website=John Rylands University Library|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101010125113/http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/|archive-date=10 October 2010|url-status=dead|title=St John Fragment}}</ref><ref>The date is given as {{circa|125}} in standard reference works.</ref>

===19th century views===
According to Adolf Julicher, [[Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider|K.G. Bretschneider's]] 1820s work on the topic of Johannine authorship pioneered the modern critical scholarship on this topic.<ref>Adolf Julicher, ''An Introduction to the New Testament,'' (New York: Smith, Elder, and co., 1904), 399 notes: "Ever since, in 1820, Prof. K.G. Bretschneider brought forward strong reasons for declaring it impossible to conceive the Fourth Gospel as the work of an Apostle, the dispute as to whether the tradition was right or wrong has become ever keener."</ref> Bretschneider called into question the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, and even stated that, on the basis of the author's unsteady grip of topography, the author could not have come from [[Palestine (region)|Palestine]].<ref>James Moffatt, "Ninety Years After: A survey of Bretschneider's 'Probabilia' in the Light of Subsequent Johannine Criticism," ''The American Journal of Theology'' 17, no. 3 (July 1913), 371: "..the opening chapter of Bretschneider is occupied with an incisive discussion of the differences between the synoptic and the Johannine conceptions of Jesus, and it concludes by depreciating the speeches of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel as unworthy of historical credence. Their style, says Bretschneider, is unlike the direct, simple utterances of the synoptic Jesus."</ref> He argued that the meaning and nature of Jesus presented in the ''Gospel of John'' was very different from that in the [[Synoptic Gospels]], and thus its author could not have been an eyewitness to the events. Bretschneider cited an [[apologetics|apologetic]] character in John, indicating a later date of composition. Scholars such as Wellhausen, Wendt, and Spitta have argued that the fourth gospel is a ''Grundschrift'' or a, "..work which had suffered interpolation before arriving at its canonical form; it was a unity as it stood."<ref>James Moffatt, "Ninety Year After: A survey of Bretschneider's 'Probabilia' in the Light of Subsequent Johannine Criticism," ''The American Journal of Theology'' 17, no. 3 (July 1913), 370</ref>

[[Walter Bauer]] opened the modern discussion on John with his book ''Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum.''<ref>The English version of this text can be found at Walter Bauer, ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'' (Philadelphia: 1971)</ref> Bauer's thesis is that "the heretics probably outnumbered the orthodox" in the early Christian world and that heresy and orthodoxy were not as narrowly defined as we now define them.<ref>Walter Bauer, ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'' (Philadelphia: 1971), 194; Charles E. Hill, ''The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 13 notes, however, that "Bauer's thesis has certainly been challenged by later scholars, and even his heirs today would not accept his theories without significant modifications. Nevertheless, as a grand, organizing principle for understanding the spread of Christianity in the second century, his approach has retained much of its force among scholars, particularly since the appearance of the English translation of the book decades later in 1971.</ref> He was "convinced that none of the Apostolic Fathers had relied on the authority of the Fourth Gospel. It was the gnostics, the Marcionites, and the Montanists who first used it and introduced it to the Christian community."<ref>Charles E. Hill, ''The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 15</ref>

===John the Apostle===
Most scholars claim that the apostle John, son of Zebedee, wrote none of the Johannine works, including the Gospel of John <ref name="harris">{{cite book|last1=Harris|first1=Stephen L.|author-link=Stephen L. Harris|title=Understanding the Bible: a Reader's Introduction|date=1985|publisher=Mayfield|location=Palo Alto|isbn=978-0-87484-696-6|page=355|edition=2nd|quote=Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them.}}</ref><ref name="Kelly2012">{{cite book|last=Kelly|first=Joseph F.|title=History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=923-w0Knq-AC&pg=PA115|date=1 October 2012|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-8146-5999-1|page=115}}</ref> Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised: 
* The Synoptic Gospels are united in identifying John as a fisherman from Galilee, and {{bibleref|Acts|4:13|NIV}} refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".<ref name="EhrmanTNT8"/>
** The Fourth Gospel is written by someone who, based on their style and knowledge of the Greek language and grammar, would have to have been well-educated in Greek; on the other hand, as an uneducated illiterate Galilean fisherman, John the Apostle would most likely have had [[Aramaic]] as his native language, and no knowledge of any other language, let alone the ability to write in the sophisticated Greek of the Fourth Gospel.<ref name="EhrmanTNT8"/>{{rp|at=32:41}}<ref name="Wahlde">{{Cite book |last=von Wahlde |first=Urban C. |date=2010 |title=The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kss_uZR19_oC&pg=PA411 |location= |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |pages=409–414 |isbn=9780802822185 |access-date=7 July 2018}}</ref>
** The Fourth Gospel emphasises [[Judea]], and the author seems to have had advanced knowledge of Judean topography, so likely came from there; on the other hand, John the Apostle came from Galilee.<ref name="Wahlde"/>
** The Fourth Gospel is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

A minority of scholars, mostly Anglo-American ones, continue to support John the Apostle as the author of the Fourth Gospel.{{refn|group=note|name="Morris1995"|Leon Morris (1995): "Continental scholars have&nbsp;... abandoned the idea that this gospel was written by the apostle John, whereas in Great Britain and America scholarship has been much more open to the idea." Abandonment is due to changing opinion rather "than to any new evidence [...] Werner, Colson, and I have been joined, among others, by I. Howard Marshall and J.A.T. Robinson in seeing the evidence as pointing to John the son of Zebedee as the author of this Gospel."<ref name="Morris1995">Morris, Leon (1995) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=II-33dS9esAC&pg=PA4 The Gospel According to John]'' Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, {{ISBN|978-0-8028-2504-9}}, pp. 4–5, 24, 35–7</ref><br>See also:<br>
* [[F. F. Bruce]] (1981): "The evidence [...] favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel [...] John knew the other gospels and&nbsp;... supplements them [...] The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John." John's style is different so Jesus' "abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting [...] He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity [...] It is the story of events that happened in history [...] John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context." 
* Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked".
* Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John.
* Dr. [[Craig Blomberg]], cited in Lee Strobel ''The Case for Christ'', 1998, Chapter 2.
* Marshall, Howard. "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary", ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804
* Robinson, J. A. T. "The Priority of John" P 122}} In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are cited.{{citation needed|date=January 2021|reason=Which passages then?}} John's chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic, because the [[Synoptic Gospels]] would have the trial before the [[Sanhedrin]] occurring on the first day of the [[Passover]], which was a day of rest.{{citation needed|date=January 2021|reason=Says who? Scholarly consensus regards the Synoptics' chronology as more reliable.}}

The question remains why the anonymously written Fourth Gospel was eventually given the title 'the Gospel of John' (or 'the Gospel according to John'), especially because John, son of Zebedee is never even mentioned in the Fourth Gospel.{{refn|group=note|The name "John" occurs 23 times the Fourth Gospel, but in none of these cases the name refers to a disciple of Jesus. 19 of the mentions refer to [[John the Baptist]] (verses 1:6, 1:15, 1:19, 1:26, 1:28, 1:32, 1:35, 1:40, 3:23, 3:24, 3:25, 3:26, 3:27, 4:1, 5:33, 5:35, 5:36, 10:40, and 10:41); the 4 remaining instances refer to the father of [[Saint Peter|Simon Peter]] (verses 1:42, 21:15, 21:16, and 21:17). [[John 21|Verse 21:2]] does mention 'the sons of Zebedee' in passing amongst a group of 7 disciples, without mentioning how many sons there were, or what their personal names were.}} This may be due to the fact that John, son of Zebedee, who is one of the most important apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, would otherwise be entirely missing in the Fourth Gospel. However, critical scholars have suggested some other possibilities, as it was common at the time to forge documents in someone else's name, or attribute anonymous works already in circulation to a famous person, for credibility.<ref name="Forged">{{cite book |last1=Ehrman |first1=Bart |title=Forged : writing in the name of God : why the Bible's authors are not who we think they are |date=2011 |publisher=HarperOne |isbn=9780062078636 |edition=1st |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MtOMO8i4GLoC |access-date=5 May 2020}}</ref>

===The beloved disciple===
{{See also|Disciple whom Jesus loved}}
The phrase ''[[the disciple whom Jesus loved]]'' ({{langx|el|ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς}}, ''ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous'') or, in [[John 20:2]], the disciple beloved of Jesus ({{langx|el|ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς}}, ''hon ephilei ho Iēsous'') is used six times in the [[Gospel of John]],<ref>{{bibleverse|John|13:23|KJV}}, {{bibleref2-nb|John|19:26|KJV}}, [[John 20:2|20:2]], {{bibleverse-nb|John|21:7|KJV}}, {{bibleverse-nb|John|21:20|KJV}}</ref> but in no other [[New Testament]] accounts of [[Jesus]]. {{bibleverse|John|21:24|KJV}} states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}} Although since the 2nd century some people{{who|date=January 2021}} have taken verse 21:24 to mean that the author of the Gospel of John himself was the eyewitness (namely the disciple whom Jesus loved), other scholars point out that verse 21:24 indicates that the author is someone else than this disciple, because he's speaking about himself in the first person plural ('we know') and the disciple in the third person ('the disciple... who has written all these things'). Therefore, the author merely claims to have used an earlier written report, allegedly from this disciple, as a source for writing the Fourth Gospel.<ref name="EhrmanTHJ5">{{Cite web |url=https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/the-historical-jesus |title=5: The Birth of the Gospels |author=Bart D. Ehrman|work=The New Testament |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |date=2002 |access-date=6 January 2021}}</ref>{{rp|at=4:37}} Even if the beloved disciple is to be accepted as the author of the Fourth Gospel, however, this still leaves open the question of what the identity of this beloved disciple was.

[[Hugh J. Schonfield]], in the controversial ''[[The Passover Plot]]'' (1965) and other works, saw evidence that the source of this Gospel was the [[Disciple whom Jesus loved|Beloved Disciple]] of the Last Supper and further that this person, perhaps named John, was a senior Temple priest and so probably a member of the Sanhedrin. This would account for the knowledge of and access to the Temple which would not have been available to rough fishermen and followers of a disruptive rural preacher from the Galilee, one who was being accused of heresy besides, and probably for the evanescent presence of the Beloved Disciple in the events of Jesus' Ministry. On this reading, the Gospel was perhaps written by a student and follower of this disciple in his last years, perhaps at Patmos.<ref>{{cite book |last=Schonfield |first=Hugh Joseph |author-link=Hugh J. Schonfield |title=The Passover Plot: a New Interpretation of the Life and Death of Jesus |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rrhk5B3AQocC |year=1965 |edition=1996 reprint |publisher=Element |isbn=978-1-85230-836-0 }}</ref> Schonfield agrees that the Gospel was the product of the Apostle's great age, but further identifies him as the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper, and so believes that the Gospel is based on first hand witness, though decades later and perhaps through the assistance of a younger follower and writer, which may account for the mixture of Hebraicisms (from the Disciple) and Greek idiom (from the assistant).{{Citation needed|date=July 2018}}

==== Identification with John the Apostle ====
Possibly since the end of the first century, the Beloved Disciple has been commonly identified with [[John the Evangelist]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |url=https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/fb044653-963f-4601-9a81-2355d67f6fea/content |last=Gathercole |first=Simon |issue=2 |volume=69 |pages=447–476 |doi=10.1093/jts/fly113 |year=2018 |issn=0022-5185}}</ref> In his early-4th-century ''[[Church History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'', [[Eusebius]] wrote 'the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved...'.<ref>Eusebius of Caesarea, ''[https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm Ecclesiastical History Book 3].'' Chapter 23. Quote: 'At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved,...'</ref> Objections are raised against the identification of John the Apostle with the "disciple whom Jesus loved", because the latter is not mentioned before the [[Last Supper]].<ref>[[Craig S. Keener]], ''The Gospel of John: Volume One''. p. 84 notes, "One could argue that the beloved disciple is not one of the Twelve because he is not mentioned by the 'beloved disciple' until the last discourse and passion narrative (one could also use this to separate sections of the gospels into sources)." See also Robert Kysar, ''John, the maverick Gospel,'' (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976), 919</ref> The title ("beloved disciple") is also strange to [[George Beasley-Murray]] because "if the beloved disciple were one of the Twelve, he would have been sufficiently known outside the Johannine circle of churches for the author to have named him".<ref>Keener, ''The Gospel of John: Volume 1, 84''; See also [[George Beasley-Murray]], ''John'', (Waco: Word Books, 1987), lxxiii</ref>

==== Identifications with others ====
Parker suggested that this disciple might be [[Mark the Evangelist|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 alleged priestly mentality in the fourth gospel. R.&nbsp;Schnackenburg suggested that "John" was an otherwise unknown resident of Jerusalem who was in Jesus' circle of friends. The ''[[Gospel of Philip]]'' and the ''[[Gospel of Mary]]'' identify [[Mary Magdalene]] as the disciple whom Jesus loved, a connection that has been analyzed by Esther de Boer<ref>de Boer, Esther, 2004. Essay in Marvin Meyer, ''The Gospels of Mary''. HarperSanFrancisco. {{ISBN|0-06-072791-8}}</ref> and made notorious in the fictional ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''. Finally, a few authors, such as Loisy and Bultmann and [[Hans-Martin Schenke]], see "the Beloved Disciple" as a purely symbolic creation, an idealized pseudonym for the group of authors.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

Filson, Sanders, [[Vernard Eller]], [[Rudolf Steiner]], and Ben Witherington suggest [[Lazarus of Bethany|Lazarus]], since {{bibleref|John|11:3|NIV}} and {{bibleverse-nb||John|11:36|NIV}} specifically indicates that Jesus "loved" him.

===Johannine community===
{{Main|Johannine community}}
While evidence regarding the author is slight, some scholars believe this gospel developed from a school or Johannine circle working at the end of the 1st century, possibly in Ephesus.<ref name="biblical literature"/>{{failed verification|date=January 2021|reason=Britannica only mentions a 'circle of readers', not a 'school' that 'worked', i.e. wrote anything.}} This hypothetical group of writers has been termed the [[Johannine community]].{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

[[Raymond E. Brown]], among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.<ref>Raymond Brown, ''The Gospel According to John,'' (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), chapter 11.</ref> In particular, [[John 21|Chapter 21]] is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the ''appendix''). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; 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. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the first person plural ("we"), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the "beloved disciple" to be true.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

More recently, scholars including [[Adele Reinhartz]] and Robert Kysar have challenged the idea of a Johannine community and cite the lack of evidence for such a community.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mendez|first1=Hugo|title=Did the Johannine Community Exist?|journal=Journal for the Study of the New Testament|date=2020|volume=42|issue=3|pages=350–74|doi=10.1177/0142064X19890490|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Possible Gnostic origins===
{{more citations needed section|date=January 2021}}
Criticism in the early 20th 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 [[Paul the Apostle|Pauline]] mysticism, while [[R. Reitzenstein]] sought the work's origin in [[Egypt]]ian and [[Iran|Persian]] [[mystery religions]].{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

[[Rudolf Bultmann]] took a different approach to the work. He hypothesized a Gnostic origin (specifically [[Mandaeanism]] which maintains that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba or "[[false prophet]],") 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 [[demythologizing]] of the role of the Redeemer. He saw the Gospel as an investigation into a God who was wholly Other and transcendent, seeing no place in the vision of the author for a Church or [[sacrament]]s.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

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.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}} In the [[English-speaking world]], Bultmann has had less impact. Instead, these scholars tended to continue in the investigation of the Hellenistic and [[Plato]]nistic 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.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

The discovery of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] in [[Qumran]] (1946/47–1956) marked a change in Johannine scholarship.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}} 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 – which are themes within the Gospel. 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 if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.{{Citation needed|date=August 2013}}

The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the ''new look'' by [[John A. T. Robinson]], who coined the phrase in 1957 at [[Oxford]]. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as [[Ernest Renan|Renan]]'s ''Vie de Jésus'' ("Life of Jesus," 1863). 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.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}

Gnosticism scholar [[Elaine Pagels]] claimed in 2003 that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a Gnostic, citing similarities with the ''[[Gospel of Thomas]]'' and the ''[[Gospel of Philip]]''.<ref name=Pagels2003>[[Elaine Pagels|Pagels, Elaine]], 2003. ''Beyond Belief'', {{ISBN|0-375-70316-0}}, pp&nbsp;115–117.
<br />– See also the response at {{cite web|url=http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56|title=Beyond Credibility: A Critical Review of Elaine Pagels' ''Beyond Belief''|author=Sophia De Morgan|website=Answering Infidels|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060514155357/http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56|archive-date=14 May 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Gnosticism scholar Pagels, "Qumran fever" that was raised by the discovery of the Scrolls was gradually dying down, with theories of Gnostic influences in the Johannine works beginning to be proposed again, especially in Germany. Some recent views have seen the theology of Johannine works as directly opposing "Thomas Christians".<ref name=Pagels2003/><ref>Riley, Gregory J., 1995. ''Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy''. Minneapolis.</ref> Most scholars, however, consider the Gnosticism question closed.<ref name="Morris1995"/><ref name="Strobel, Lee 1998">Dr. [[Craig Blomberg]], cited in Lee Strobel ''The Case for Christ'', 1998, Chapter 2.</ref>

==Epistles of John==
{{main|Johannine epistles}}

Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is.<ref name="books.google.com"/><ref name="The Gospel and Epistles of John: A"/><ref name="The Epistles of John"/> These three epistles are similar in terminology, style, and general situation.<ref name = "biblical literature"/> They are loosely associated with the Gospel of John and may result from that gospel's theology.<ref name = "biblical literature"/> Internal evidence as well as commentary by Papias and Polycarp suggest that the Johannine epistles originated in Asia Minor.<ref name = "biblical literature"/> Early references to the epistles, the organization of the church apparent in the text, and the lack of reference to persecution suggests that they were written early in the 2nd century.<ref name = "biblical literature">{{cite encyclopedia|title=biblical literature|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Online|date=8 July 2010|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature}}</ref>

===First epistle===
The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel,<ref name=Burton>{{cite journal |last=Burton|first= Ernest DeWitt|author-link=Ernest DeWitt Burton|year=1896|title=The Epistles of John|journal=The Biblical World|volume=7|issue=5|pages= 366–369|publisher=University of Chicago Press|jstor=3140373|doi=10.1086/471866|s2cid= 145739378}}</ref> so the question of its authorship is often connected to the question of authorship of the gospel. The two works use many of the same characteristic words and phrases, such as ''light'', ''darkness'', ''life'', ''truth'', ''a new commandment'', ''to be of the truth'', ''to do the truth'' and ''only begotten son''.<ref name="Wilder214"/> In both works, the same basic concepts are explored: the Word, the incarnation, the passing from death to life, the truth and lies, etc.<ref name="Wilder214">{{cite book|last=Wilder|first=Amos|author-link=Amos Wilder|editor-last=Harmon|editor-first=Nolan|title=The Interpreter's Bible|volume=12|page=214|chapter=Introduction to the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John|publisher=[[Abingdon Press]]|year=1957}}</ref> The two works also bear many stylistic affinities to one another. In the words of [[Amos Wilder]], the works share "a combination of simplicity and elevation which differs from the flexible discourse of Paul and from the more concrete vocabulary and formal features of the Synoptic Gospels."<ref>Wilder 1957, pp.&nbsp;214–215.</ref>

Given the similarity with the Gospel, the "great majority" (as of 1957) of critical scholars assign the same authorship to the epistle that they assign to the Gospel.<ref name="Wilder214"/> At the end of the 19th century, scholar [[Ernest DeWitt Burton]] was able to write that, "the similarity in style, vocabulary and doctrine to the fourth gospel is, however, so clearly marked that there can be no reasonable doubt that the letter and the gospel are from the same pen."<ref name="Burton"/> Starting with [[Heinrich Julius Holtzmann]], however, and continuing with [[C. H. Dodd]], some scholars have maintained that the epistle and the gospel were written by different authors.<ref name="Wilder214"/> There are at least two principal arguments for this view. The first is that the epistle often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence, a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel.<ref>Wilder 1957, p. 211</ref> The second is that the author of the epistle, "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel."<ref>C. H. Dodd, "The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXI (1937)</ref>

The book was not among those whose [[Biblical canon|canonicity]] was in doubt, according to [[Eusebius]]; however, it is not included in an ancient Syrian canon. [[Theodore of Mopsuestia]] 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.{{citation needed|date=August 2020}}

The First Epistle of John assumes knowledge of the Gospel of John, and some scholars think that the epistle's author might have been the one who redacted the gospel.<ref name = "biblical literature"/>

===Second and third epistles===
[[Irenaeus]], in the late second-century, quotes from 1st and 2nd John, and states that he is quoting the Apostle John.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Painter|first1=John|title=1, 2, and 3 John|year=2008|publisher=Liturgical Press |isbn=9780814659731|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=69NOPHVFCwAC&q=irenaeus+2+john&pg=PA42}}</ref> Eusebius claimed that the author of 2nd and 3rd John was not John the Apostle but actually [[John the Elder]],<ref>Eusebius: The Church History</ref> due to the introductions of the epistles. However, modern scholars have argued that Eusebius made this conclusion based on a misinterpretation of a statement from [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias]] and a desire to invent a second John to be the author of [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]].<ref>{{cite web|title=24. 2 John: Introduction, Argument, and Outline|url=https://bible.org/seriespage/2-john-introduction-argument-and-outline|access-date=18 August 2017}}</ref> Carson suggests that the vocabulary, structure, and grammar of the Gospel of John is remarkably similar to 1st John, 2nd John and 3rd John.<ref>The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Hardcover). [[D. A. Carson|D.A Carson]], Wm. B. [[Eerdmans Publishing Company]] (January 1991) pg. 25</ref>

==Book of Revelation==
[[File:Saint Jean à Pathmos.jpg|thumb|right|Saint John of Patmos, by [[Jean Fouquet]]]]
{{main|Book of Revelation}}

The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself as "John".  The book has been traditionally credited to John the Apostle.<ref name="ODCC Revelation, Book of"/> Reference to the apostle's authorship is found as early as [[Justin Martyr]], in his ''[[Dialogue with Trypho]]''.<ref name="Justin">Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 81.4</ref> Other early witnesses to this tradition are [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias]],<ref>{{cite book|last=Holmes|first=Michael|title=The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations|date=2005|page=749ff|publisher=Baker Academic |isbn=080103468X}}</ref> [[Irenaeus of Lyon|Irenaeus]],<ref>''Against Heresies iv. 20. 11''</ref> [[Clement of Alexandria]],<ref>''Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? xlii''</ref> [[Tertullian]],<ref>''On Prescription Against Heretics 36''</ref> [[Cyprian]], and [[Hippolytus of Rome|Hippolytus]].<ref>''Treatise on Christ and Antichrist xxxvi''</ref> This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including [[Dionysius of Alexandria]], Eusebius of Caesarea, [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [[Gregory Nazianzen]], and [[John Chrysostom]].<ref>[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm New American Bible: Revelation]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Confraternity of Christian Doctrine|first1=Board of Trustees|last2=Catholic Church|first2=National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Administrative Committee|author3=United States Catholic Conference|title=The New American Bible: translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient, including the revised Psalms and the revised New Testament|access-date=2011-12-29|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford, New York|isbn=978-0-19-528903-9|oclc=436316983|pages=1363–1364|chapter=The Book of Revelation|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=upCApSwuJP0C&pg=PA1364 }}</ref> The [[Apocryphon of John]], a Gnostic work, claims John as both the author of itself and Revelation.<ref>S. Giversen. Apocryphon Johannis Copenhagen: 1963 p. 49</ref>

A work of [[Epiphanius of Salamis]] records a Presbyter of Rome named Gaius who fiercely condemns [[Cerinthus]], a [[Gnostic]], and accuses Cerinthus of "lyingly introducing portents to us, supposedly shown him by angels, saying that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth and that again the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will be the subject of desires and pleasures.  And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God and wishing to deceive, he says the period of the marriage feast will be a thousand years."  This is considered to probably be a reference to Revelation and an accusation that Cerinthus was its true author.<ref name="nicklas2020">{{cite book |last=Nicklas |first=Tobias |author-link= |editor-first=Craig R. |editor-last=Koester |date=2020 |chapter=Revelation and the New Testament Canon |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=364 |isbn=978-0-19-065543-3}}</ref>

In the 3rd century, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria rejected apostolic authorship but accepted the book's canonicity. Dionysius believed that the author was another man also named John, John the Presbyter, teacher of [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias, bishop of Hieropolis]]. Eusebius of Caesarea later agreed with this.  Eusebius records Dionysius of reporting that in his day, those who disagreed with the authority of the book cited the argument that Cerinthus was the true author.  It goes into more detail, saying that in this view, Cerinthus was a libertine who was a "lover of the body and quite carnal", and he wrote the book as wish fulfillment wherein the saints would enjoy similar fleshly pleasures in the future.<ref name="nicklas2020" /><ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm Eusebius: Church History (Book VII), Chapter 25]</ref><ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm Euserbius: Church History (Book III, Chapter 39)]</ref> Because apostolic authorship was one of several considerations for [[canonization]], several [[Church Fathers]] and the [[Council of Laodicea]] rejected Revelation.<ref>''The Book of Revelation'' by [[Robert H. Mounce]]. pp.&nbsp;23–24</ref>

Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone.<ref name="ODCC Revelation, Book of">"Revelation, Book of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005</ref> The Book of Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities whereas the Gospel and [[Epistles]] are all stylistically consistent which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel/Epistles's author.<ref>Ehrman 2004, p. 467ff</ref> Contemporary scholars note that when Revelation and the Gospel refer to Jesus as "lamb" they use different Greek words, and they spell "Jerusalem" differently. There are differing [[Motif (narrative)|motif]]s between the book and the Gospel: use of allegory, symbolism, and similar metaphors, such as "living water", "shepherd", "lamb", and "manna". 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 [[eschatology]] of the two works are also very different.<ref>John, the Son of Zebedee By R. Alan Culpepper, pp.&nbsp;98–102</ref> Still, the author uses the terms "Word of God" and "Lamb of God" for Jesus Christ, possibly indicating that the author had a common theological background with the author of John.<ref name="ODCC Revelation, Book of"/>

Another issue arguing against authorship by John the Apostle is that "the apostles" are occasionally mentioned within the work, yet the author never indicates that he is one.  [[Revelation 4]] describes a vision of twenty-four elders seated on twenty-four thrones, which is generally assumed to be a reference to Jesus's promise that the twelve disciples would be seated on thrones and judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel ({{bibleverse|Matthew|19:28|NRSV}}; {{bibleverse|Luke|22:28-30|NRSV}}).  Yet, if the identification of the twenty-four elders as the disciples and the Patriarchs of the twelve tribes is accurate, the author does not mention seeing himself among the elders.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/the-historical-background-to-the-book-of-revelation/ |title=The Historical Background to the Book of Revelation |last= Ehrman |first=Bart |date=July 17, 2021  |access-date=July 21, 2021 }}</ref>

According to the testimony of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96.

==See also==
* [[Authorship of the Pauline epistles]]
* [[John 21]]
* [[John the Evangelist]]
* [[Textual criticism]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note|30em}}

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Sources ==
{{refbegin|30em}}
*{{cite book |last=Koester |first=Craig R. |year=2015 |title=Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7ctvBAAAQBAJ |location=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven]] and [[London]] |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |series=[[Anchor Bible Series|The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries]] |volume=38A |isbn=9780300216912}}
* {{Cite book
 | title = The Johannine Literature
 | last1 = Lindars | first1 = Barnabas
 | last2 = Edwards | first2 = Ruth
 | last3 = Court | first3 = John M.
 | year = 2000
 | publisher = A&C Black
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=qVOD0PhayhsC
 | isbn = 978-1-84127-081-4
}}
{{refend}}

== Bibliography ==
*{{cite book |author-last=Attridge |author-first=Harold W. |author-link=Harold W. Attridge |year=2008 |chapter=Part II: The Jesus Movements – Johannine Christianity |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA125 |editor1-last=Mitchell |editor1-first=Margaret M. |editor1-link=Margaret M. Mitchell |editor2-last=Young |editor2-first=Frances M. |editor2-link=Frances Young |title=The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine |location=[[Cambridge]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |pages=125–143 |doi=10.1017/CHOL9780521812399.008 |isbn=9781139054836}}
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Black |editor1-first=C. Clifton |editor2-last=Smith |editor2-first=D. Moody |editor3-last=Spivey |editor3-first=Robert A. |year=2019 |orig-date=1969 |title=Anatomy of the New Testament |chapter=John: The Gospel of Jesus’ Glory |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3MSHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129 |location=[[Minneapolis]] |publisher=[[Fortress Press]] |edition=8th |pages=129–156 |doi=10.2307/j.ctvcb5b9q.15 |isbn=978-1-5064-5711-6 |s2cid=242455133 |oclc=1082543536}}
*{{cite book |author-last=de Boer |author-first=Martinus C. |year=2018 |chapter=The Story of the Johannine Community and its Literature |editor1-last=de Boer |editor1-first=Martinus C. |editor2-last=Lieu |editor2-first=Judith M. |editor2-link=Judith Lieu |title=The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.4 |isbn=9780198739982 |lccn=2018947872 |s2cid=189193694}}
*{{cite book |last=Byers |first=Andrew J. |year=2017 |chapter=The Johannine Vision of Community: Trends, Approaches, and ‘Narrative Ecclesiology’ |title=Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John |location=[[Cambridge]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |doi=10.1017/9781316823750.002 |pages=3–24 |isbn=9781316823750}}
*{{cite journal |last=Doole |first=J. Andrew |date=March 2021 |title=To Be 'An Out-of-the-Synagoguer' |journal=[[Journal for the Study of the New Testament]] |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |volume=43 |issue=3 |pages=389–410 |doi=10.1177/0142064X20973905 |doi-access=free |issn=1745-5294 |s2cid=228846103}}
*{{cite book |last=Ferreira |first=Johan |year=1998 |title=Johannine Ecclesiology |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IO3UAwAAQBAJ |location=[[Sheffield]] |publisher=[[Sheffield Academic Press]] |series=The Library of New Testament Studies |isbn=9780567286833 |lccn=98156774}}
*{{cite book |last=Hill |first=Charles E. |year=2005 |chapter=Part III: The Evidence for a Johannine Corpus |title=The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |doi=10.1093/0199264589.003.0009 |pages=447–464 |isbn=9780199264582 |oclc=475098055}}
*{{cite book |author-last=Lincoln |author-first=Andrew T. |author-link=Andrew T. Lincoln |year=2018 |chapter=The Johannine Vision of the Church |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oWhiDwAAQBAJ |editor-last=Avis |editor-first=Paul |editor-link=Paul Avis |title=The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology |pages=98–118 |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199645831.013.23 |isbn=9780199645831}}
*{{cite journal |last=Méndez |first=Hugo |date=March 2020 |title=Did the Johannine Community Exist? |journal=[[Journal for the Study of the New Testament]] |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=350–374 |doi=10.1177/0142064X19890490 |doi-access=free |issn=1745-5294 |s2cid=216330794}}
*{{cite book |author-last=Ong |author-first=Hughson T. |year=2015 |chapter=The Gospel from a Specific Community but for All Christians: Understanding the Johannine Community as a “Community of Practice” |editor1-last=Porter |editor1-first=Stanley E. |editor1-link=Stanley E. Porter |editor2-last=Ong |editor2-first=Hughson T. |title=The Origins of John's Gospel |location=[[Leiden]] and [[Boston]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |series=Johannine Studies |volume=2 |pages=101–123 |doi=10.1163/9789004303164_007 |isbn=978-90-04-30316-4 |issn=2214-2800}}
*{{cite book |author-last=Painter |author-first=John |author-link=John Painter (theologian) |year=2010 |chapter=Johannine Literature: The Gospel and Letters of John |editor-last=Aune |editor-first=David E. |editor-link=David Aune |title=The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament |location=[[Chichester, West Sussex]] |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |pages=344–372 |doi=10.1002/9781444318937.ch20 |isbn=9781444318937}}
*{{cite book |author-last=Reinhartz |author-first=Adele |author-link=Adele Reinhartz |year=2013 |chapter=Forging a New Identity: Johannine Rhetoric and the Audience of the Fourth Gospel |editor1-last=Krans |editor1-first=Jan |editor2-last=Lietaert Peerbolte |editor2-first=L. J. |editor3-last=Smit |editor3-first=Peter-Ben |editor4-last=Zwiep |editor4-first=Arie W. |title=Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer |location=[[Leiden]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |series=[[Novum Testamentum|Novum Testamentum: Supplements]] |volume=149 |pages=123–134 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MoKxIeOTkqYC&pg=PA123 |doi=10.1163/9789004250369_009 |isbn=978-90-04-25026-0 |issn=0167-9732 |s2cid=171267332}}

==External links==
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN%2B21%3A20-24&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=greek&version=WHNU&x=19&y=11 John 21:20-24] at [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway], or [http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN%2B21%3A20-24&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NIV&x=12&y=5 the same passage in English (NIV)]. (Other texts, the other passages mentioned, and other translations are also available at the same site.)
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html Discussion of the view that John the Apostle did not write the book] (and links to related material) at [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com Early Christian Writings].
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'' article]
* [http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/May/May-08.html Orthodox Church of America's take]

{{Gospel of John}}
{{First Epistle of John}}
{{Second Epistle of John}}

[[Category:1st-century Christianity]]
[[Category:2nd-century Christianity]]
[[Category:Biblical authorship debates|Johannine works]]
[[Category:Ephesus]]
[[Category:Johannine literature|*]]