Authorship of the Fourth Gospel

Who wrote the Fourth Gospel?

I've been working on my lecture on John for my Intro to New Testament class. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by the weight of the earliest testimony regarding the question of authorship.

Clearly the unanimous testimony of the early Church was that John the Apostle wrote the book. Two of the clearest references are found in Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment.

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3. 3. 4: “Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Muratorian Canon: The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, (one) of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, whilst all were to go over (it), John in his own nameshould write everything down.

Other writers who support this view include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

In addition, we should note that there is absolutely no manuscript of the Gospel which attributes authorship to anyone else. I think this is too often overlooked.

But does the testimony of the early Church fit the internal evidence? I think so.

1) Eye-witness status of the author. It seems to have been written by someone claiming to be an eye-witness. In some cases this is explicitly stated.
John 1:14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us… we have beheld his glory…
John 19:35: He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe.

Other passage seem to be most intelligibly read as eye-witness testimony.

John 13:23-30: One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; 24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.” 25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast”; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.

In my view, the recounting of the "beckoning" gesture of Peter is highly suggestive of eye-witnesse testimony. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that the description of the apostles' assumptions regarding Judas' activity at the Last Supper was meant to be read in a way that did not involve recognition of the author's presence in the Upper Room.

2) Added details. There are stories in the Fourth Gospel which appear in the Synoptics--but there is also the appearance of added details, which simply cannot be explained away as theological symbolism. Jesus multiplied five barley loaves (6:9); in the account of Jesus walking on the water John includes a mention of the distance rowed by the disciples across the Sea of Galilee ("twenty five or thirty stadia," 6:19); in the account of the anointing at Bethany, the odor of the woman’s anointing filled the house (12:3); the reaction of the soldiers in the garden to his statement, “I AM” (18:6); the weight of spices brought to Jesus' tomb as about a hundred pounds (19:39). There were also the six stone jars at the wedding in Cana (2:9) and the number of fish caught (153) and the distance the boat was from the land (about a hundred yards), on the occasion of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples (21:8, 11). In addition, we find some inside information about the reactions of the disciples (e.g. 2:11 f.; 4:27; 6:19; 12:16; 13:22 f.) and of the Lord himself (cf. 2:11, 24; 6:15, 61; 13:1). Again, I think all of this is highly suggestive of eye-witness testimony.

3) Familiarity with Jewish Beliefs and Palestinian Geography. The author has a remarkable knowledge of Jewish cultic concerns (purification rites, 2:6; the likely allusion to the libation and illumination ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles 7:37; 8:12; pollution concerns prior to eating the Passover, 18:28; 19:31–42), common Jewish beliefs (the laws concerning the sabbath, 5:10; 7:2 1–23; 9:14 ff.; ideas of hereditary sin, 9:2), and intimate knowledge of Palestinian geography (the knowledge of two Bethanys, 1:28; 12:1; of Aenon near Salim, 3:23; of Cana in Galilee, 2:1; 4:46; 21:2; of Tiberias as an alternative name for the Sea of Galilee, 6:1; 21:1; of Sychar near Shechem, 4:5; Mt. Gerizim's location near a well, 4:21; of Ephraim near the wilderness, 11:54; mention of the pool of Siloam, 9:7). It seems clear that the Gospel is written by a Palestinian with Israelite stock.

4) The "Beloved Disciple" and the Inner Circle. An an important passage in determining authorship comes at the end of the Gospel:

John 21:20-24: Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”… 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Of course, different scholars have put forth different theories. One line of thought has pointed to the rich young ruler in Mark's Gospel, of whom it is said that Jesus “loved him” (Mark 10:21). Another has suggested that the author is Lazarus (=John 11:3: “he whom you love”). Yet, it is clear that the author is most likely one of the seven mentioned in chapter 21. One of the 7 mentioned in John 21:
John 21:1-2: "After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberi-as; and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathana-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together."

From this list, it would make most sense to suppose that the "beloved disciple"--the author of the Gospel--is one of the sons of Zebedee or one of the two other disciples.

It is interesting to note that, with one exception (John 19:26-27), this disciple is always associated with Peter (in addition to below, see John 13:23-30 above). An example of this is found in John 20:1-10.
John 20:1-10:  Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; 5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.

In the Synoptic Gospels it seems clear that Peter along with James and John make up a kind of "inner circle". In addition to the Transfiguration, where Jesus takes these three up the mountain (cf. Matt 17:1//Mark 9:2//Luke 9:28), we could mention other passages.
Mark 5:35-43: While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” 36 But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” 37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James… 
Mark 13:32-33: And they went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

Indeed, if the Synoptic Gospels are to be believed, Jesus gave Peter, James and John special attention. It would be natural to expect that the Fourth Gospel's "Beloved Disciple," who has a special relationship with Jesus, is likely one of these three.

Now, it has been noted that the "Beloved Disciple" is virtually always associated with Peter. In connection with this should also be noticed that Luke seems to frequently associate Peter and John.
Luke 22:7-13: When came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.”
Acts 3:1: Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.
Acts 4:13, 19: Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the man that had been healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
Acts 8:14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John…

If the "Beloved Disciple" is one of the three in the inner circle, I think it makes most sense to see him as John the Apostle, which beautifully dovetails with the overwhelming testimony of the Church fathers. Having carefully considering the internal evidence in the past few days, I can't find a good reason for denying their testimony.

In conclusion, I want to say that, at first blush, it would seem that the "academically responsible" approach would be to remain noncommittal about Johannine authorship. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that the opposite is true. Hedging on Johannine authorship seems to betray an unwillingness to acknowledge the coherence of the early testimony with the internal evidence. One wonders if such reluctance is motivated by other concerns. Clearly, asserting that someone like the rich young ruler is the author of the Fourth Gospel seems to stretch the limits of credulity. Rather, it would seem the unanimous patristic witness was reliable when it held that the Gospel the manuscripts all call "The Gospel According to John" was written by, well... er, John.

The Last Supper, the Atonement, and Alfred Loisy

In light of Michael’s recent post on Pope Benedict's Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, I thought I’d post something eucharistic. I know it’s a little long, but I'm still getting used to the rules of blogdom (keep it short and sweet.)

As some of you may know, I have been working on a new book on Jesus and the Eucharist for the last year and a half or so. The working title is currently The Eucharistic Aims of Jesus. In it, I am going to attempt a full-scale reassessment of Jesus and the Last Supper in light of the recent advances in Jesus research, especially restoration eschatology. You would be amazed at just how small a role the Last Supper has played in many of the major historical portraits of Jesus in the century and how people have failed to connect it with the rest of his public ministry (e.g., E. P. Sanders).

In any case, during the course of my research on this topic, one of the most frustrating things I have encountered is the uncritical manner which many scholars treat the accounts of the Last Supper. Despite the fact that the Last Supper and the words of institution are perhaps the most solidly attested sayings or actions of Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and Paul 1 Cor 11), many modern researchers either reject the words of institution in their entirety or they cut them in pieces like so many scraps of paper, jettisoning this or that element and uhistorical with almost reckless abandon (e.g., Ruldolf Bultmann).

Why is this the case? I have wondered. What is the reason? It certainly can't be because the texts aren't solidly attested.

Well, today I found one answer to the question. While working on my book, I have also taken Dale Allison’s advice (see his Resurrecting Jesus, chapter 1) to go back and read the old books, and have been working through Hilarin Felder’s work, Christ and the Critics (London: Burnes Oates and Washbourne, 1924 [German original, 1922]) In this fascinating 1000 page defense of the historicity of the Gospels and Jesus’ claims to messiahship and divinity, the German Franciscan scholar critiqued the same scissors-and-paste treatment of the words of institution that has been giving me headaches for the last year, showing that it has old roots and deep reasons behind it.

Felder argues that there is a theological (not historical) motive driving this approach: according to him, the primary reason the Last Supper is treated this way is because it is a huge stumbling block for scholars who want to suggest that it was Paul, not Jesus, who invented the doctrine of the atoning and redemptive death of Jesus.

As Felder shows, many modern critics—contrary to almost all reigning source-critical theories, I might add—have suggested that the Synoptic Gospels borrowed the idea of the redemptive death from the Pauline epistles, in particular the description of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. As an example of this, Felder cites the work of the famous French modernist Catholic priest Alfred Loisy, whose skeptical conclusions eventually got him excommunicated.

In Loisy’s famous book, The Church and the Gospel (1902), he argued that the redemptive element of the Last Supper accounts must be stricken as unhistorical and argues instead that the concept originated with Paul. His explanation will become typical for much work on the Last Supper in the modern period, so Felder cites it in full:

Loisy: “From all appearances the text of Mark concerning the redemption of many through the death of Christ (Mark 10:45) must have been inspired by Paul, and it seems as if this Evangelist’s report of the Last Supper had been enriched by Paul with the idea of redemption; Jesus seems to have presented the chalice and the bread with reference to his approaching death and the future reunion with his own in the kingdom of God, without, however, setting forth the atoning character and redemptive significance of his death.

The words of Jesus, as given by Luke (22:19), which refer to his atoning death, appear to have been introduced subsequently from the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:24). Mark’s representation of the Last Supper (14:22, etc.) appears to be based on a narration, similar to that of Luke, only what he says of the ‘blood of the new testament’ must have been introduced in accordance with the doctrine of Paul. The second Gospel, so influenced by the editing given it by Paul, must then, in its turn, have influenced the first Gospel of Matthew. Originally a shorter account of the scene of the Last Supper had, therefore, preceded the synoptic representation of it, in which, it is true, the thought of Christ’s approaching death was present, but not the Pauline features of the atoning character of that death.” (Alfred Loisy, L’Evangile et l’Eglise, 72, cited by Felder, Christ and the Critics, 1:187).

To Loisy’s extensive “historical” scenario Felder responds: “We can hardly believe our eyes in beholding this artificial construction of history. “It appears... it should be... it would be... it must be... it could be...” That is all! And from this is drawn the conclusion that the passages of the synoptists bearing on this point [i.e., the redemption] do not, therefore, belong to the Gospel of the Saviour, but to the theology of Paul! A more groundless criticism of the Gospels can scarcely be imagined.” (Felder, Christ and the Critics, 1:178-88).

Yet this it is in fact such groundless hypotheses and speculative "Tradition-histories" that will go on to dominate much twentieth-century work on the Last Supper. The logical force of such "must have" arguments is less than underwhelming.

But I like Felder's concluding comments best: “Remarkable! If the Pauline idea of atonement were not to be found in the writings of the Evangelists, then they [Loisy and Co.] would doubtless say: ‘You see that Paul must have imputed this idea to the Saviour, otherwise we should find it also in the Gospels’. But since it does form a part of the Gospels also, they say: ‘You see that the Evangelists ascribe these views to the Savior in order to please Paul’. (Felder, Christ and the Critics, 1:189). I laughed out loud at this point; anyone whose read Bultmann and his heirs know that this has the ring of truth.

It seems to me that Felder has Loisy pinned—along with the many other scholars who have followed suit in similar excisions of the redemptive elements of the Last Supper. Where else do historical Jesus researchers suggest that Mark’s Gospel—or any Gospel for that matter—is literarily dependent on 1 Corinthians? Why not simply posit the more likely conclusion, that the notion of Jesus' redemptive death goes back to Jesus himself? You tell me.

(Or I’ll tell you, when I’m done with the book. You’ll be surprised who lines up with Loisy when it comes to the Last Supper. I promise.)