Since it’s the Feast of St. John…

Since it’s the Feast of St. John… December 27, 2013

I offer you this action-packed Sheaving I wrote some time ago on the question “Is John the Author of His Gospel?”

The link was busted but I fixed it.

"Humans are giant dorks.I teach little children. Trust me.They make me laugh from the bottom ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"When I was much younger, a very good and honest priest misinterpreted something I mentioned ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"Your narrative is so, so, so very tired. I grew up with it.I choose Jesus ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"Oh, you poor thing, it must have traumatized you."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • said she

    Psst: Mark! Typo in that link. <– trailing junk breaks the link

    • chezami

      See if it works now.

      • Julia

        Still broken

      • Nope

      • James H, London

        Yup, it works.

  • Dave G.

    I’m getting a ‘file not found’ when I click the link

  • Mariana Baca

    people can remove the characters after html and it works.

  • capaxdei

    I think the whole fuss is a bit silly. “John the Evangelist” means “John the Gospel Writer,” so if John the Gospel Writer didn’t write a Gospel then he isn’t John the Gospel Writer. But we’re talking about John the Gospel Writer. Therefore, he didn’t not write a Gospel. QED.

  • The Deuce

    Thanks, Mark. See also here:

    It amazes me that so many “scholars” deny a case as airtight as John’s authorship of his Gospel. It’s rare to ever have such an insurmountable weight of evidence confirming the authorship of any work, and when you consider the enormous conspiracy it would take to produce such consensus of John’s authorship among his contemporaries and direct disciples if he hadn’t authored it (heck, John himself would basically have to be in on it), and the evil genius it would take for the non-John author to produce so much subtle-but-telling internal evidence, the whole thing immediately becomes ludicrous.

    It seems that critical “scholars” think lunatic tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories involving hundreds of people become reasonable and compelling if they are just placed more than a couple hundred years into the past.

    Ultimately, I think this is an indication of the strength of John’s testimony. If the author is who the book presents him as, then Christianity is true full stop, so those who don’t wish to believe *have* to find some way around it, no matter how ludicrous.

    In any event, the extremes to which they’ll go to reject John’s authorship of John give a pretty good indication of just how much stock to put in their arguments on matters that aren’t quite as thoroughly nailed down.