Gospel of John (who?) or Gossip of John (who?)
The questionable doctrine of incarnation, which appears in the beginning
of the gospel of John as follows:
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was
God." (1:1)
It further States:
"And word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld
his glory as of the only son from the Father."
The above words are and/or have been attributed to John. Because John was disciple, who
makes it appear that the founder of this doctrine was not Paul, but John.
This claim might have been sound if the gospel of John was at least as similar and
coherent as the first three gospels. However, gospel of John is questioned and doubted by
the Christians themselves. A large number 2nd century Christians have denied that John
wrote the gospel. In current times, the authenticity of gospel has been a center of debate
and dispute.
Irenaeus, Orogen, Clement, and Eusebius were the first made claims that this gospel was
the work of John, the disciple. Nevertheless, at that time [254 AD], a group of Christians
refused to accept that John wrote the gospel. According to Encyclopedia Britannica the
position of this group is as follows:
"A positive testimony for the critical conclusion is derived from the existence of a
group of Asia Minor Christians who about 165 rejected the gospel as not by John but by
Cerinthus. The attribution is doubtless mistaken; but could Christians who were
sufficiently numerous to deserve a long discussion by St. Epiphanius in 374-377, and who
upheld the Synoptic, stouts opposed the Gnostics and Montanists, and had escaped every
special designation till the Bishop nick-named them the "Alogi" (irrational
rejecters of the Logos-Gospel), dare in such a time and country, to hold such views had
the apostolic origin been incontestable."
Then there is internal evidence that shows that this gospel was not written by disciple
John. However, the author of gospel of John was certainly a Jewish theologian who was very
well familiar with Jewish thoughts and ideas. As it appears from the Acts 4:13, the
disciple John son of Zebedee was uneducated. The gospel further reveals that its author
was deeply learned and belonged to a noble family. Contrary to that John [disciple] son of
Zebedee has a lower status from social point of view. Beside this, contents and style of
gospel of John radically differs from other three gospels.
The first person to ascribe the fourth gospel as the work of John was "Irenaeus"
who, according to Christian scholars is not reliable and not an expert in the filed of
critical analysis. For similar reasons, a large group of Christian scholars in recent
times view this gospel as a fabrication and opined that it should be included among the
other books in Bible.
Those Christian scholars, who regard the gospel as correct and who wish to save it from
the allegation of fabrication, are virtually unanimous that the author of fourth gospel
was not the John [son of Zebedee] but the John the Elder. James Mackinon writes:
" It is likely enough that "Irenaeus, whose accuracy and critical discernment
are not outstanding has confused him with another John [John the Elder] mentioned by
Papias of Hierapolis in Asia, in the second quarter of second century, as well as with the
Prophet John of the Book of Revelation."
A well-known Christian scholar from Pakistan [Barakatullah] writes:
"We have reached the conclusion that the narration of that gospel of John was written
by John the son of Zebedee is incorrect."
Barakatullah, furthers by saying that:
"The truth is that the theologians are not willing to accept without debate that the
fourth gospel was written by John son of Zebedee. And generally, theories to the contrary
are seen."
Barakatullah has endeavored in great details in his book to substantiate his claim that
the author of the fourth gospel was not John the son of Zebedee. Why did Barakatullah, a
Christian scholar believe to establish this fact? He explains in the following words:
"Those theologians who believe that the fourth gospel was written by John son of
Zebedee- they do not generally accept the historical significance of this gospel. Their
theory is that the fourth gospel is free of historical events, and that its contents
belong to author who puts it in the mouth of the word of God."
In fact attribution of the fourth gospel as the work of John son of Zebedee, the disciple,
places its authenticity in serious jeopardy, the reverend has attempted to show that it
was written by John the Elder. His research indicates that John the Elder was also a
student of Jesus, but he was not counted among disciples. Since John the Elder was a young
person and was honored by Jesus in his last days to include John the Elder in his company.
John the Elder was a cultured and learned in the Old Testament. He belonged to a noble
family that he has expressed in his gospel. Many Christians generally accept this
conclusion today. That has resulted in rejecting John son of Zebedee, the disciple as the
author of fourth gospel.
The above conclusion is without foundation. Apart from protecting the originality of the
gospel of John, one cannot see any other reason for it. The question yet to be answered
that if John the Elder, beside the twelve disciples was another student of Jesus. Why has
he not mentioned by Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels? The fourth gospel indicates
that its author was in very close contact with Jesus; also he was loved deeply by Jesus as
well. The author of fourth gospel has used the expression in many places "the
disciple whom Jesus loved." At the end, the author says that the meaning of that
expression is the author of the fourth gospel himself.
[See e.g. " One of his disciple, whom Jesus loved was lying close to the breast of
Jesus 13:23]. And "So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord,
who is it?" 13:25]
We don't see this closeness by/for twelve disciples, but this disciple was so loved that
he was allowed to be that close and eat. So, if Jesus was so close to him [author], then
the author was not included as thirteenth disciple? How is it rationally acceptable that
Judas Iscariot who was regarded as thief (John 12:6) and who betrayed Jesus and caused his
master [Jesus] to be arrested [Luke 22:3], be included among the twelve disciples, and the
student of Jesus [the author of fourth gospel], who ate close to [laying] the breast of
Jesus?
Which none other disciple did], and who was most concerned at Jesus ascension to heaven by
reason of separation from him is/was not included among disciples of Jesus?
Further, why Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels, which according to Christians
contains a complete description and details of Jesus' life, even mentioning ordinary
persons who were connected with Jesus like Mary Magdalene, Martha in reference of Jesus'
donkey, completely fail to make any reference to this alleged student of Jesus?
IF there was a disciple named John the Elder, beside from John son of Zebedee, the
disciple, then why the authors of all four gospels failed to explain the distinction
between two Johns to avoid confusion? Among the twelve disciples we know that there were
TWO [James] (1) James son of Zebedee (2) James son of Alphaeus. Similarly, there were TWO
persons with the name of Judas (1) Judas son of James (2) Judas Iscariot. The authors of
four gospels have distinguished between them by mentioning them separately in order to
avoid confusion. [See e.g. Matthew 10:6, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13] So, if there were two
persons among the disciples of Jesus by the name of John, then why the authors of gospels
did not dispel the confusion as the authors of four gospels did in the cases of James and
Judas?
Further, if there was a disciple of Jesus by the name of John the Elder, then where did he
go after the ascension of Jesus? The efforts and activities of disciples of Jesus after
his departure are described in detail in the book of Acts. But there is no mention of any
John the Elder. It cannot be assumed or said that he [John the Elder] died immediately
after the ascension of Jesus. Because the gospel of John was written very much after
Jesus. It is stated therein that " and this is famous amongst the disciples-author of
fourth gospel will live till the day of judgment (21:23). Therefore, all Christian
theologians, who regard John the Elder as separate from the John the son of Zebedee, the
disciple are of the view that John the Elder remained alive for a considerable period
after Jesus to the extent that Polycrap became his student. The evidence is indisputable
that John the Elder was not a disciple of Jesus. The verse at the end of gospel of John
states that:
" This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written
these things, and we know that this testimony is true (21:24)."
Let us keep this fact in mind that the majority of Christian scholars believes that above
verse is a later insertion and is not by the author of gospel of John. The well known
commentator of the Bible Westcott, who is very cautious and careful to criticize the
Bible, says in this regards [quoted by Streeter, p 430]:
" The two verses appear to be separate notes attached to the gospel before its
publication. The form of verse 24 contrasted with that of XIX 35 shows conclusively that
it is not the witness of the evangelist. The words were probably added by Epaesian Elders,
to whom the preceding narrative had been given both orally and in writing."
This view is supported by the well-known writer of modern times Bishop Gore, and this is
the reason why these two verses are not found in the codex sineticus. Therefore, one
cannot say that the author of these verses was a disciple of Jesus.
It establishes beyond any doubt that the author of the fourth gospel is neither John son
of Zebedee, the disciple nor John the Elder or any other disciple of Jesus. In view of the
above facts the author of fourth gospel was a person who lived very much later than the
disciples of Jesus and who acquired his knowledge under Paul and his students. According
to "Westcott", in order to ascribe gospel of John, son of Zebedee, the disciple,
certain sentences were added which includes the personal experience of the writer, with a
view to refuting the arguments of some Gnostic sects of that times who rejected the
so-called divinity of Jesus. It is undisputed in the academic world that alterations in
Bible were common and continue in order to debate opposing sects of the time. Professor
Streeter, the well-known Christian scholar of modern time writes in his book [The Four
Gospels p 4] in the clearest terms possible and I quote:
" Then, in the fourth gospel we find an addition to the text, admittedly nor by the
original author which makes a definite statement as to authorship, is it not more probable
that it was made at some later date perhaps also in some other locality, and was intended
to assert a view as to the authorship of the book from which certain person at that time
or place dissented? And that such dissent did exist in the second century we shall see
shortly. That being so, the addition of the words "this is the disciple which.wrote
these things" is to be interpreted as an attempt to settle a debated question, and
is, therefore, additional evidence of the existence of doubts in regard to the authorship
of the Gospel."
Hence, it is not without wonder, that under such circumstances the fourth gospel and the
letters of John were written by a student of Paul, and people later made certain
alterations to establish that the author of fourth gospel has met personally with Jesus
and has been in his company, which by the way is not true.
Keeping the general approach on these times in mind, this conclusion appears to be
correct. In Christian view the fourth gospel may have been written by John the Elder, but
he was not a disciple of Jesus. By adopting the views of professor Streeter, the author of
fourth gospel was John the Elder, but that: [Streeter "The Four Gospels p 443]
"John the Elder is described by Papias as disciple of the Lord" by Polycrap as
one "who has seen the Lord." We need not suppose that he had done much more when
'see' Him, brought perhaps as a boy of twelve years old to Jerusalem by his father on
pilgrimage to the Passover. And he may have been among the crowd that looked on at the
crucifixion, people in those days
were not careful to keep such sights from children. In that case by AD 95 he would have
reached the age of seventy-seven. The First Epistle of John was obviously written by a man
of advance years, who can pass quite naturally from "brethren" to my little
children" in the same paragraph (IJN III 13 and 18). This last phase would hardly
have been written by a man under seventy."
There is, then no difficulty in supposing that John the Elder wrote the fourth gospel AD
90-95 at the age of seventy of above.
Conclusion
Christian missionary and evangelists desperately attempt to save the fourth gospel from
being declared as created. But if one can avoid fruitless attempts of justification and
accept the theory as it is, the following conclusion is inevitable.
1. The author of fourth gospel was NOT John son of Zebedee, the disciple, but John the
Elder.
2. John the Elder is NOT among the disciples of Jesus.
3. John the Elder, saw Jesus once at the age of twelve [12], but did NOT get any
opportunity of serving Jesus or hearing his teachings.
4. John the Elder saw the Jesus in the last stage of crucifixion.
5. He was NOT a citizen of Jerusalem, but he was a resident of Southern regions of Canaan.
6. After Jesus and until AD 95, there is NO record or any account where he lived? And from
whom he acquired knowledge? Whose company he was often in/with? And what relationship he
had with the disciples of Jesus?
7. On or about 95 AD, at the age of 70+ he wrote the gospel of John in which he mentions
for the first time the doctrine of incarnation.
8. Later, an addition was made at the end of the gospel that indicated that its author was
the disciple John the son of Zebedee or some beloved disciple of Jesus.
The conclusions set forth above are hardly a result of Muslims' reasoning,
but are rather the views of Christian theologians in order to save the fourth gospel from
being declared as created. The above conclusions will lead to undeniable facts cited
below.
(a) The doctrine of incarnation cannot be ascribed to Jesus or any of his disciples.
(b) A person who at the age of twelve only saw Jesus but did not acquire any knowledge
from him first wrote this doctrine after the ascension of Jesus.
(c) The person who presents this doctrine is unknown, apart from his writing, his
condition and situation is unknown.
(d) What type of person he was? What were his beliefs? How did he come up with this
doctrine? What was his relationship with the disciples?
(e) This doctrine of incarnation came into being and/or inserted in the Bible around 95 AD
when his age was 70 and 28 years had passed since the death of Paul.
(f) Because Paul had died before him, and Paul had clearly expounded the doctrine of
incarnation in his letters, which proves that the first person to expound the doctrine of
incarnation was not John the Elder, but Paul.
(g) Let us not forget this fact that any statement of Jesus neither supports the doctrine
of incarnation, nor was it espoused by any of his disciples.
Back to Answering Trinity section.
Contradictions and Errors in the Bible.
Please email me at Osama Abdallah
Back to either www.aol40.com or www.answering-christianity.com
Both sites are exactly the same
You are visitor number:
since 4/13/1999.