Authorship of the Johannine works

The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the Book of
Revelation) has been debated by biblical scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.[1] 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,[2] only a
minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[3] and most conclude that he wrote none of
them.[2][4][5] 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.[6][7][8]

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.[9] That community is traditionally and
plausibly either attributed to Ephesus or Damascus, circa AD 90-110.[10]

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of
Patmos, c. 95 with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.[2][11]

Contents
Early use and attribution of the Johannine works
Attestation
Quotations
Gospel of John
Overview
Dating
19th century views
John the Apostle
The beloved disciple
Identification with John the Apostle
Identifications with others El Greco's c. 1605 painting Saint
Johannine community John the Evangelist shows the
Possible Gnostic origins traditional author of the Johannine
works as a young man.
Epistles of John
First epistle
Second and third epistles
Book of Revelation
See also
Notes
References
Sources
Bibliography
External links

Early use and attribution of the Johannine works

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[12] and alludes to John
10:7-9[13] and John 14:6,[14] but none of these are direct quotations
or contain information exclusive to John. Polycarp of Smyrna
quotes about the "antichrist" in his 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.[15][16]
Saint John on Patmos by Hans
The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias, preserved in
Baldung Grien, 1511
fragmentary quotes in 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.[17]

Irenaeus's witness based on Papias represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to
have lived.[18] 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.[19]

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.[20]

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."[21] 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."[22] 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."[23]

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 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.[24] Justin Martyr is probably the first
Church Father to quote the Gospel of John.[25] Some scholars conclude that in antiquity John was probably
considered less important than the synoptics.[26] Walter Bauer suggests:

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 – 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 – poisoned, so Irenaeus thought, by the Valentinians and Marcion (AH 1.
28. 1 [=1.26.1]).[27]

One reason for this 'orthodox ambivalence' was gnostic acceptance of the fourth gospel.[28] The early
Gnostic use is referred to by Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Origen in quoted commentary made on John by the
Gnostics Ptolemy, Basilides[29] and Heracleon. In the quote below Irenaeus argues against the gnostic
heresy from his book Against Heresies:

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.[30]

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
Valentinus.[31]

The following table shows the number of times various church fathers cited John compared to the synoptic
gospels.[32]

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

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
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 Enlightenment.

Overview

A summary of the proposed candidates is as follows:

The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was

identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost
universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]
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.[33]
John the Presbyter – an obscure early church figure mentioned
in the writings of Papias of Hierapolis.
A Syriac Christian rendition
John the Evangelist – apart from being a potential nickname for
any of the figures mentioned above, he could be an otherwise of St. John the Evangelist,
unknown person called John who wrote the Fourth Gospel. from the Rabbula Gospels,
6th century.
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.[34]
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.[34]: 31:45
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 100AD,[35] although a minority suggest an even later date.[36] 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.[37] However, claims of authorship that date
much later than 100AD 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 125AD.[38][39][40]

19th century views

According to Adolf Julicher, K.G. Bretschneider's 1820s work on the topic of Johannine authorship
pioneered the modern critical scholarship on this topic.[41] 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.[42] 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 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."[43]

F.C. Baur proposed that the Fourth Gospel 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 in the epistles a synthesis with the
opposing dualist forces of Gnosticism. As such, he assigned a date of 170 to the Gospel.

Walter Bauer opened the modern discussion on John with his book Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im
ältesten Christentum.[44] 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.[45] 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."[46]

John the Apostle

Most scholars conclude that the apostle John, son of Zebedee, wrote none of the Johannine works,
including the Gospel of John (that is therefore sometimes referred to as the 'Fourth Gospel' in order to
dissociate John from it).[2][4] 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 Acts
4:13 (https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:Acts%204:13) refers to John as "without
learning" or "unlettered".[34]
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.[34]: 32:41 [47]
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.[47]
The Fourth Gospel is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life and is familiar with
Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation.

A minority of scholars, mostly Anglo-American ones, continue to support John the Apostle as the author of
the Fourth Gospel.[note 1] In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages
are cited. 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.
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.[note 2] 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.[48]

The beloved disciple

The phrase the disciple whom Jesus loved (Greek: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā
ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the disciple beloved of Jesus (Greek: ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho
Iēsous) is used six times in the Gospel of John,[49] but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John
21:24 states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple. Although since the
2nd century some people 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. [50]: 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 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.[51] 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).

Identification with John the Apostle

Since the end of the first century, the Beloved Disciple has been commonly identified with John the
Evangelist. In his early-4th-century Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote 'the apostle and evangelist John,
the one whom Jesus loved...'.[52] 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.[53] 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".[54]

Identifications with others

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 alleged priestly mentality in the fourth gospel. R. 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[55] 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.

Filson, Sanders, Vernard Eller, Rudolf Steiner, and Ben Witherington suggest Lazarus, since John 11:3 (htt
ps://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:John%2011:3) and 11:36 (https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:J
ohn%2011:36) specifically indicates that Jesus "loved" him.

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.[56] This hypothetical group of
writers has been termed the Johannine community.

Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave
final form to the work.[57] In particular, 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.

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.[58]

Possible Gnostic origins

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 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
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 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 impact. 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.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran (1946/47–1956) 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 – 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.

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 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.

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.[59] 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".[59][60] Most scholars, however, consider the Gnosticism question closed.[35][61]

Epistles of John
Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that
author is.[6][7][8] These three epistles are similar in terminology, style, and general situation.[56] They are
loosely associated with the Gospel of John and may result from that gospel's theology.[56] Internal evidence
as well as commentary by Papias and Polycarp suggest that the Johannine epistles originated in Asia
Minor.[56] 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.[56]

First epistle

The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel,[62] 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.[63] In both works, the same basic concepts are explored: the
Word, the incarnation, the passing from death to life, the truth and lies, etc.[63] 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."[64]
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.[63] 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."[62] 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.[63] 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.[65] 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."[66]

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 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.

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.[56]

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.[67] Eusebius claimed that the author of 2nd and 3rd John was not John the Apostle but actually John
the Elder,[68] 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 and a desire to invent a
second John to be the author of Revelation.[69] Carson suggests that the vocabulary, structure, and grammar
of the Gospel of John is remarkably similar to 1st John, 2nd John and 3rd John.[70]

Book of Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself as "John".
The book has been traditionally credited to John the Apostle.[33]
Reference to the apostle's authorship is found as early as Justin
Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho.[71] Other early witnesses to
this tradition are Papias,[72] Irenaeus,[73] Clement of
Alexandria,[74] Tertullian,[75] Cyprian, and Hippolytus.[76] This
identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including
Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.[77][78] The
Apocryphon of John, a Gnostic work, claims John as both the
author of itself and Revelation.[79]

According to Epiphanius, one Caius of Rome believed that

Cerinthus, a Gnostic, was the author of the Book of Revelation.[80]

In the 3rd century, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria rejected

apostolic authorship but accepted the book's canonicity. Dionysius Saint John of Patmos, by Jean
believed that the author was another man also named John, John Fouquet
the Presbyter, teacher of Papias, bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius of Caesarea later agreed with this.[81][82]
Because authorship was one of several considerations for canonization, several Church Fathers and the
Council of Laodicea rejected Revelation.[83]

Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide
differences in eschatology, language, and tone.[33] 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.[84]
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 motifs 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.[85] 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.[33]

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
(Matthew 19:28 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%2019:28&version=nrsv); Luke 22:28–30 (htt
ps://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2022:28–30&version=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.[86]

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
1. Leon Morris (1995): "Continental scholars have ... 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."[35]
See also:
F. F. Bruce (1981): "The evidence [...] favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel [...] John knew
the other gospels and ... 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
2. 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 Simon Peter (verses 1:42, 21:15,
21:16, and 21:17). 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.

References
1. F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997), 45
2. Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Understanding the Bible: a Reader's Introduction (2nd ed.). Palo
Alto: Mayfield. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-87484-696-6. "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."
3. Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
4. Kelly, Joseph F. (1 October 2012). History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create
Doctrinal Conflicts (https://books.google.com/books?id=923-w0Knq-AC&pg=PA115).
Liturgical Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-8146-5999-1.
5. Harris, Stephen L. (1980). Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Guide and Reference (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=TGJKeHOmGhwC). Mayfield Publishing Company. p. 296.
ISBN 978-0-87484-472-6. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
6. Kruger, Michael J. (30 April 2012). My library My History Books on Google Play Canon
Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (https://books.
google.com/books?id=0blebRF0AZ0C&pg=PA272). p. 272. ISBN 9781433530814.
7. Brown, Raymond E. (1988). The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=JIM0Q0bjgYkC&pg=PA105). p. 105. ISBN 9780814612835.
8. Marshall, I. Howard (14 July 1978). The Epistles of John (https://books.google.com/books?id
=OWJyCgAAQBAJ&q=john+epistles+most+scholars&pg=PT38). ISBN 9781467422321.
9. Ehrman, pp. 178–9.
10. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament (https://archive.org/details/int
roductiontone00brow_0/page/334). New York: Anchor Bible. p. 334 (https://archive.org/detail
s/introductiontone00brow_0/page/334). ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
11. Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
12. John 3:8 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John%203:8&version=nrsv)
13. John 10:7–9 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John%2010:7–9&version=nrsv)
14. John 14:6 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John%2014:6&version=nrsv)
15. Polycarp (http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml) at NTCanon.org
16. Justin Martyr (http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml) at NTCanon.org
17. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4-6
18. Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.11 = Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 5.8.4
19. Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press. 1990. p. 246
20. Don Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571-
582.
21. Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History 14.2
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xiv.html
22. Origen, Commentary on John 10.4.6.
23. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987: p. 131.
24. Craig Keener, A Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume 1, (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003), 93.
25. 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."
26. 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."
27. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: 1971), 206
28. 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
29. Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies, Book VII (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nic
ene_Fathers/Volume_V/Hippolytus/The_Refutation_of_All_Heresies/Book_VII/Part_11).
Translated by John Henry MacMahon – via Wikisource.
30. Against Heresies 1.9.2., see (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103109.htm)
31. Fragments of Heracleon's Commentary on John can be found here (http://www.gnosis.org/lib
rary/fragh.htm)
32. Taken from Grant, Robert M. (1942). "The Fourth Gospel and the Church". Harvard
Theological Review. 35 (2): 95–116. doi:10.1017/S0017816000005216 (https://doi.org/10.1
017%2FS0017816000005216). S2CID 163661026 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:163661026).
33. "Revelation, Book of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New
York: Oxford University Press. 2005
34. Bart D. Ehrman (2002). "8: John: Jesus the Man from Heaven" (https://www.thegreatcourses.
com/courses/new-testament). The New Testament. University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
35. Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John (https://books.google.com/books?id=II-33
dS9esAC&pg=PA4) 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
36. 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."
37. 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 ... 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."
38. 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 52, that it "may with some
confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D."
39. "St John Fragment" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101010125113/http://www.library.manch
ester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/). John Rylands University Library.
Archived from the original (http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collection
s/stjohnfragment/) on 10 October 2010.
40. The date is given as c. 125 in standard reference works.
41. 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."
42. 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."
43. 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
44. The English version of this text can be found at Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in
Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: 1971)
45. 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.
46. Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2004), 15
47. von Wahlde, Urban C. (2010). The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three
Johannine Letters (https://books.google.com/books?id=kss_uZR19_oC&pg=PA411). Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 409–414. ISBN 9780802822185. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
48. Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged : writing in the name of God : why the Bible's authors are not
who we think they are (https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/MtOMO8i4GLoC) (1st ed.).
HarperOne. ISBN 9780062078636. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
49. John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20
50. Bart D. Ehrman (2002). "5: The Birth of the Gospels" (https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/t
he-historical-jesus). The New Testament. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Retrieved 6 January 2021.
51. Schonfield, Hugh Joseph (1965). The Passover Plot: a New Interpretation of the Life and
Death of Jesus (https://books.google.com/books?id=rrhk5B3AQocC) (1996 reprint ed.).
Element. ISBN 978-1-85230-836-0.
52. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History Book 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25
0103.htm). Chapter 23. Quote: 'At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom
Jesus loved,...'
53. 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
54. Keener, The Gospel of John: Volume 1, 84; See also George Beasley-Murray, John, (Waco:
Word Books, 1987), lxxiii
55. de Boer, Esther, 2004. Essay in Marvin Meyer, The Gospels of Mary. HarperSanFrancisco.
ISBN 0-06-072791-8
56. "biblical literature" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature).
Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 8 July 2010.
57. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), chapter
11.
58. Mendez, Hugo (2020). "Did the Johannine Community Exist?" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0
142064X19890490). Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 42 (3): 350–74.
doi:10.1177/0142064X19890490 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0142064X19890490).
59. Pagels, Elaine, 2003. Beyond Belief, ISBN 0-375-70316-0, pp 115–117.
– See also the response at Sophia De Morgan. "Beyond Credibility: A Critical Review of
Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060514155357/http://www.an
sweringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56). Answering Infidels.
Archived from the original (http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&tas
k=view&id=56) on 14 May 2006.
60. Riley, Gregory J., 1995. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy.
Minneapolis.
61. Dr. Craig Blomberg, cited in Lee Strobel The Case for Christ, 1998, Chapter 2.
62. Burton, Ernest DeWitt (1896). "The Epistles of John". The Biblical World. University of
Chicago Press. 7 (5): 366–369. doi:10.1086/471866 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F471866).
JSTOR 3140373 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3140373). S2CID 145739378 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:145739378).
63. Wilder, Amos (1957). "Introduction to the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John". In
Harmon, Nolan (ed.). The Interpreter's Bible. Vol. 12. Abingdon Press. p. 214.
64. Wilder 1957, pp. 214–215.
65. Wilder 1957, p. 211
66. C. H. Dodd, "The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel," Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library, XXI (1937)
67. Painter, John (2008). 1, 2, and 3 John (https://books.google.com/books?id=69NOPHVFCwA
C&q=irenaeus+2+john&pg=PA42). ISBN 9780814659731.
68. Eusebius: The Church History
69. "24. 2 John: Introduction, Argument, and Outline" (https://bible.org/seriespage/2-john-introdu
ction-argument-and-outline). Retrieved 18 August 2017.
70. The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Pillar New Testament
Commentary) (Hardcover). D.A Carson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (January
1991) pg. 25
71. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4
72. Holmes, Michael (2005). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations.
p. 749ff. ISBN 080103468X.
73. Against Heresies iv. 20. 11
74. Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? xlii
75. On Prescription Against Heretics 36
76. Treatise on Christ and Antichrist xxxvi
77. New American Bible: Revelation (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm)
78. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Board of Trustees; Catholic Church, National Conference
of Catholic Bishops, Administrative Committee; United States Catholic Conference (2005).
"The Book of Revelation" (https://books.google.com/books?id=upCApSwuJP0C&pg=PA136
4). 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. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1363–1364. ISBN 978-0-19-528903-9. OCLC 436316983
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/436316983). Retrieved 29 December 2011.
79. S. Giversen. Apocryphon Johannis Copenhagen: 1963 p. 49
80. Cerinthus (https://web.archive.org/web/20210202092043/https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/en
cyc02.cerinthus.html?highlight=epiphanius,h%C3%A6r,xxviii#highlight) at CCEL.org
81. Eusebius: Church History (Book VII), Chapter 25 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.
htm)
82. Euserbius: Church History (Book III, Chapter 39) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.
htm)
83. The Book of Revelation by Robert H. Mounce. pp. 23–24
84. Ehrman 2004, p. 467ff
85. John, the Son of Zebedee By R. Alan Culpepper, pp. 98–102
86. Ehrman, Bart (17 July 2021). "The Historical Background to the Book of Revelation" (https://
ehrmanblog.org/the-historical-background-to-the-book-of-revelation/). Retrieved 21 July
2021.
Sources
Koester, Craig R. (2015). Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(https://books.google.com/books?id=7ctvBAAAQBAJ). The Anchor Yale Bible
Commentaries. Vol. 38A. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
ISBN 9780300216912.
Lindars, Barnabas; Edwards, Ruth; Court, John M. (2000). The Johannine Literature (https://
books.google.com/books?id=qVOD0PhayhsC). A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-84127-081-4.

Bibliography
Attridge, Harold W. (2008). "Part II: The Jesus Movements - Johannine Christianity" (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA125). In Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young,
Frances M. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125–143.
doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521812399.008 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCHOL9780521812399.
008). ISBN 9781139054836.
Bellinzoni, Arthur J. (25 February 2000). The Early Christian Community: From Diversity to
Unity to Orthodoxy (https://web.archive.org/web/20060901094259/https://minerva.wells.edu/
whatsnew/wnspch25.htm). Lecture delivered to the Wells College Faculty Club.
Black, C. Clifton; Smith, D. Moody; Spivey, Robert A., eds. (2019) [1969]. "John: The Gospel
of Jesus' Glory" (https://books.google.com/books?id=3MSHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129).
Anatomy of the New Testament (8th ed.). Minneapolis: Fortress Press. pp. 129–156.
doi:10.2307/j.ctvcb5b9q.15 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2Fj.ctvcb5b9q.15). ISBN 978-1-5064-
5711-6. OCLC 1082543536 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1082543536). S2CID 242455133
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:242455133).
de Boer, Martinus C. (2018). "The Story of the Johannine Community and its Literature". In
de Boer, Martinus C.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.4
(https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F9780198739982.013.4). ISBN 9780198739982.
LCCN 2018947872 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2018947872). S2CID 189193694 (https://api.semant
icscholar.org/CorpusID:189193694).
Byers, Andrew J. (2017). "The Johannine Vision of Community: Trends, Approaches, and
'Narrative Ecclesiology' ". Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–24. doi:10.1017/9781316823750.002 (https://doi.org/10.
1017%2F9781316823750.002). ISBN 9781316823750.
Doole, J. Andrew (March 2021). "To Be 'An Out-of-the-Synagoguer' " (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F0142064X20973905). Journal for the Study of the New Testament. SAGE
Publications. 43 (3): 389–410. doi:10.1177/0142064X20973905 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F
0142064X20973905). ISSN 1745-5294 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1745-5294).
S2CID 228846103 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:228846103).
Ferreira, Johan (1998). Johannine Ecclesiology (https://books.google.com/books?id=IO3UA
wAAQBAJ). The Library of New Testament Studies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
ISBN 9780567286833. LCCN 98156774 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98156774).
Hill, Charles E. (2005). "Part III: The Evidence for a Johannine Corpus". The Johannine
Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 447–464.
doi:10.1093/0199264589.003.0009 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2F0199264589.003.0009).
ISBN 9780199264582. OCLC 475098055 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/475098055).
Lincoln, Andrew T. (2018). "The Johannine Vision of the Church" (https://books.google.com/
books?id=oWhiDwAAQBAJ). In Avis, Paul (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 98–118.
 doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199645831.013.23 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F978
0199645831.013.23). ISBN 9780199645831.
Méndez, Hugo (March 2020). "Did the Johannine Community Exist?" (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F0142064X19890490). Journal for the Study of the New Testament. SAGE
Publications. 42 (3): 350–374. doi:10.1177/0142064X19890490 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F
0142064X19890490). ISSN 1745-5294 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1745-5294).
S2CID 216330794 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:216330794).
Ong, Hughson T. (2015). "The Gospel from a Specific Community but for All Christians:
Understanding the Johannine Community as a "Community of Practice" ". In Porter, Stanley
E.; Ong, Hughson T. (eds.). The Origins of John's Gospel. Johannine Studies. Vol. 2. Leiden
and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 101–123. doi:10.1163/9789004303164_007 (https://doi.org/
10.1163%2F9789004303164_007). ISBN 978-90-04-30316-4. ISSN 2214-2800 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/issn/2214-2800).
Painter, John (2010). "Johannine Literature: The Gospel and Letters of John". In Aune,
David E. (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 344–372. doi:10.1002/9781444318937.ch20 (https://doi.org/10.1002%
2F9781444318937.ch20). ISBN 9781444318937.
Reinhartz, Adele (2013). "Forging a New Identity: Johannine Rhetoric and the Audience of
the Fourth Gospel" (https://books.google.com/books?id=MoKxIeOTkqYC&pg=PA123). In
Krans, Jan; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.; Smit, Peter-Ben; Zwiep, Arie W. (eds.). Paul, John, and
Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Novum Testamentum:
Supplements. Vol. 149. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 123–134.
doi:10.1163/9789004250369_009 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F9789004250369_009).
ISBN 978-90-04-25026-0. ISSN 0167-9732 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0167-9732).
S2CID 171267332 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:171267332).

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works&oldid=1107799335"

This page was last edited on 31 August 2022, at 23:50 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.