reblogged from Bart’s blog
Some of the same objections to Matthew having written the First Gospel apply to John the son of Zebedee having written the Fourth. Unlike Matthew, John did not copy any of our other Gospel sources, and so that’s not the problem that it is for Matthew (who surely, if he was an eyewitness, would not have taken his stories about Jesus from what he found in someone else’s written text). But there is an even higher probability, bordering on certainty, that John the son of Zebedee could not write. He was a fisherman from rural Galilee. Fishermen were not educated. They were very low class peasants. John would never have gone to school. Where he lived, there *were* no schools. He never would have learned to read. Let alone learned to write. Let alone learned to write in Greek. Let alone learned to write sophisticated, philosophically informed prose narratives in Greek. I think there is virtually no chance that the historical John of Zebedee wrote the Gospel.
So why did our anonymous editor living a century later, in Rome, claim that the Gospel *was* written by John? There is the one obvious reason: he wanted this anonymous Gospel to have the authority of an apostle behind it. Recall who John was. In the Gospels Jesus had twelve disciples, three of whom form a kind of “inner circle” around him, Peter, James, and John. James was known to have been martyred early on, according to the book of Act 12:1-2. And so he’s not a candidate to have authored a Gospel later (John was always regarded as the last of the Gospels to be written, a “more spiritual” account produced to complement the more nuts-and-bolts accounts of the Synoptics). Peter was going to be named as the ultimate source behind the Gospel of Mark, as we will see, so he was not a candidate for the Fourth Gospel. That left John.
But there is a more important reason for this association of the Gospel with John. As we have seen, for a very long time – about as far back as anyone talks about the matter, that is, the second century – it was wrongly thought that John’s Gospel itself indicates that its author was the “Beloved Disciple” (see my earlier post on why this shadowy figure did not write the book). So who was the Beloved Disciple?
There have been numerous theories about this over the years, most of the theories being completely implausible. Some have argued that it was Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, since in John 11:5 we are told that Jesus “loved Lazarus.” But it doesn’t make sense that Lazarus is the shadowy figure, the Beloved Disciple, since if it was Lazarus, and the author names Lazarus as Lazarus elsewhere, why wouldn’t he simply call the Beloved Disciple Lazarus? Some have thought it was Mary Magdalene, who could not be named because she was a woman. But despite its sensationalist value, that doesn’t much work, because this disciple is referred to as a male (with masculine pronouns), and really nothing other than a wish that Mary were closer to Jesus can account for it. (Plus Mary and the Beloved disciple interact with each other, so they can’t be the same person; John 20:1-2)
There are lots of other modern-day theories. But, for reasons I have already hinted at, the age-old theory is that it was John the son of Zebedee. The Beloved Disciple is one of Jesus’ closest companions. He is the one leaning on Jesus’ breast at his final meal, who asks who will betray him. Who were Jesus’ closest disciples? Peter, James, and John. The Beloved Disciple could not be Peter, because he is mentioned alongside Peter in a number of passages (almost in competition with him). He also could not be James because there are hints in John 21 that the Beloved Disciple would live a long time, but it was known that James was martyred fairly early on in the history of the first century church (already in Acts 12).
That leaves John. And so there is a steady tradition that goes way back that John was the Beloved Disciple. And since it was thought that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Fourth Gospel, it started to be named John.
Let me stress yet again that there is no one who calls the Fourth Gospel “John” until Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon. It is interesting that in later legends two particular proto-orthodox church fathers of the early to mid-second century, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna and Papias – whom I have already discussed at length – are both said to have been companions of John the son of Zebedee during his apostolic ministry later in his life. Polycarp was said to have been his disciple, one who “sat at his feet.” Papias was eventually credited as being John’s secretary, and in fact to have been the one to whom John dictated his Gospel.
Some scholars maintain that these traditions are historically creditable. I myself do not – I think these are legends meant to buttress the credentials and therefore the authority of Polycarp and Papias. It is interesting and worth reflecting on that we have an actual letter from Polycarp in which he quotes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But not from John. Why would that be, if John was his teacher and if John wrote the Fourth Gospel? My view is that either John was not his teacher or he did not think John wrote the Gospel.
In some ways Papias is even more interesting. If Papias was John’s disciple, and if he talked about John as the author of the Fourth Gospel, why does Eusebius, when quoting Papias, mention only what he says about Matthew and Mark? Why not give Papias’s comments on John? I would suppose that either it is because Papias does not say that John wrote the Gospel, or that he says someone else wrote it, or that he says yet something else about it that was not acceptable to Eusebius’s views two hundred years later.
In any event, it is relatively clear why Christians at the end of the second century would want to claim that John the Son of Zebedee wrote the Fourth Gospel, and equally clear why in fact he almost certainly did not.
Categories: Bible
Blogging Theology 
But there is an even higher probability, bordering on certainty, that Muhammad was not a trained philosopher. Where he lived, there were no schools of philosophy or monotheism. He never would have learned to recite sophisticated, philosophically elaborate poetry in Arabic about monotheism. I think there is virtually no chance that the historical Muhammad ever recited the Koran.
So why did our anonymous editor living a century later, in Mecca, claim that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad ? There is one obvious reason : he wanted this anonymous Koran to have the authority of a prophet behind it. Recall who Muhammad was.
In any event, it is relatively clear why Muslims at the end of the eighth century would want to claim that Muhammad was revealed the Koran, and equally clear why in fact he almost certainly was not.
LikeLike
an odd comment.
The Quran (if you read it) is not a work of philosophy. Muhammad did not claim to be its author, nor did any of his followers. Many of his companions memorized parts or the whole of it. We now have a manuscript of the Quran from just a few years after Muhammad’s lifetime (see this post on blogging theology). Western scholars – in the main – believe the Quran contains the revelations Muhammad thought he received from God.
LikeLike