Strong Evidence That John Wrote the Fourth Gospel

#apologetics #bible #gospels

Just about every shred of evidence we have from manuscripts and early church fathers identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author of John’s Gospel. But if you read the book by itself, John isn’t explicitly identified by name. He refers to himself as ‘the beloved disciple.’ Because of that, skeptics like Bart Ehrman tell us that we’re clueless about who wrote it.

Ehrman says: “The Gospel of John … is completely anonymous. The author does not tell us his name or identify himself in any way.”

But before Bart was a twinkle in his daddy’s eye, 19th-century BF Westcott did some Batman-like detective work. Using only internal evidence, Westcott narrowed things down to John, the son of Zebedee, as the prime suspect for who wrote the Gospel.

In this video, I summarize Westcott's arguments and conclude that John is the most logical suspect for the authorship of John's Gospel.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Other helpful works:

Outro music:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Pool of Bethesda photo credit: Drive Thru History.

[TestifyApologetics]

I know there are a lot of objections about the authorship of John's Gospel. I'll be reviewing those in a future video.

[Ninevehh]

I first came across the argument from Jerusalem's elevation through the works of Peter J. Williams. He is a fantastic author and his work "can we trust the gospels" is a good starter for people curious about apologetics.

[Giant_Meteor]

If the Gospel of John had been a _discovered_ document, then all these arguments would be good detective work for finding the best guess as to who authored the text.
But it is a document that was always treasured from the day it was first written, within a specific community (the church), broadly distributed, with unanimous attestation to authorship. The church itself hands over (traditions) of all sorts of knowledge that renders disputes like these moot.

[PopoolaTemidayo]

I'm always enjoying your presentations and articles. God bless you sir

[indianasmith]

I love this one so much! The arguments against John's authorship have always irritated me. Of COURSE he wrote it.

[MurraySwe]

Your presentations are pretty good quality. Love the animations on the images. :)

[luluflu]

This channel is everything I ever wanted when I'm talking about the new testament with my friends and collegues. You make me gain a lot more time. Previously I had to do a lot of reasearch and reading and it was very tiresome. Thank you !
I can't stop watching your videos ! I'm going to share all of them to my french catholic student association. If your channel was way bigger this world would be a better one.

[nashwalker]

Spot on brother. I think its a sad reality these days. If you accept anything traditional, you are looked at as fool. Keep up the good work.

[cliffmorganekitson]

I didnt expect such a short video to be so full of good content! Thanks a lot for tour work!

[HaloK]

This is really good analysis and the evidence is certainly there but there is something that everyone seems to miss when it comes to authorship of the Gospels and all of the books of the NT. The Gospels are only anonymous in that the authors refuse to name themselves and possibly distract from Jesus as the focus of the writing. However, all 4 were written to a community of Christians. Thus, the first recipients of the Gospels would have known who wrote them. Upon making copies they would have made known who the authors were. I find it interesting that there are absolutely no stories of anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as being the authors. There are zero stories that anyone else wrote them!!! Eusebius is very clear on who wrote them. Bart is entirely wrong on his assessment that we can’t or don’t know who write the Gospels as if they just mysteriously appeared out of thin air one day. If that were the case, why on earth would the church accept them??? How could they have any weight or authority??? No, the church has always known who the authors were with two being actual apostles and two being very close to apostles. Bart needs to go back to school!

[sasquatchycowboy]

I'm only a lay person but I don't understand the skepticism regarding the Gospel of John. People talk about theology or words used compared to the Synaptics, and i get that. But we have writing earlier than Synoptics. Paul is indisputably the author of seven letters, all written in the 50's. Read Paul and John together and at least in English, Youngs Litteral Translation, they are in lock step. The Theology is almost identical. They both use the phrase "the Jews." They just seem so similar. The argument that John couldn't write is absurd. Paul says the apostles could charge a heavy price if they wanted. Why on earth would it be difficult for an apostle to have a bilingual educated Greek write down the stories for them. Isn't Roman's pinned by someone assisting Paul? If Paul could get an assist, why not John? Yes, the gospel of John has long discourses, but wouldn't an account from an apostle? Wouldn't it be a kind of behind the scenes gospel. The Synoptic sounds like stories of Jesus's public teaching. But John sounds like someone who was there when the crowds left.

[prototechnic]

The style of these videos reminds me of The Bible Project. Very well done sir.

[josephhamilton]

Weak arguments.

1. Geographical Accuracy:
Pool of Bethesda: The description of the of Bethesda and other locations in the Gospel of John could suggest familiarity with Jerusalem, but this does not necessarily prove authorship by John the Apostle. Other people from Jerusalem or those with access to oral traditions and sources could also have known these details.
Roof Walkway: The claim about the roof walkway protecting Jesus from cold winds is speculative and not a strong argument for eyewitness authorship. Details about architectural features and their practical uses could have been common knowledge or included for narrative purposes.

2. Knowledge of Bodies of Water: The mention of five bodies of water and the specific reference to the Sea of Galilee as the Sea of Tiberius might indicate familiarity with the region, but this does not exclusively point to John the Apostle. Other local residents or those familiar with the area could have written the Gospel. Furthermore, the Sea of Galilee was widely known and its alternate name, Sea of Tiberius, was commonly used in that period.

3. Specific Details and Numbers:
Mentioning Individuals: The inclusion of specific individuals such as Lazarus, Nicodemus, and Simon Iscariot does not uniquely qualify the author as John. These names could have been part of oral tradition or sourced from other accounts available at the time.
Numbers: The use of specific numbers (e.g., six water pots, 38 years of illness, four days dead, 153 fish) can add a sense of realism or symbolism to the narrative but does not prove eyewitness authorship. Ancient authors often used specific numbers for literary or theological reasons.

4. Presence at Events:
Last Supper and Crucifixion: While the Gospel of John includes detailed descriptions of these events, the author’s presence is inferred rather than explicitly stated. Moreover, intimate details could have been passed down through oral tradition or derived from other sources. The claim that the author had to be one of the 12 disciples is an assumption without direct evidence from the text itself.

[Thoughtflux]

Awesome video! I was wondering about this after watching 'useful charts' video series on who wrote the Bible. This answers my questions. Many Thanks!

[sunnyjohnson]

John’s Gospel is written by John. The place written was Ephesus or near it; the writing was completed in 98 C.E. Time covered: After prologue, 29-33 C.E.

The fact that a copy of John’s Gospel was circulating in Egypt, where the fragment was discovered gives strong support that “Good News According to John” was recorded in the first century C.E. and by John himself!

[makarov]

I would suggest a small booklet written by J. Phillips entitled "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved." It was thoroughly researched and written for the specific purpose of getting to the very heart of the matter. The internal scriptural evidence tells the tale when taken at face value without a preconceived perspective.

[colmwhateveryoulike]

Also all the bishops in Asia Minor (where John was primarily responsible and who are the 7 churches addressed in Revelation) believed John to be the author of Revelation - contrary to the popular gap-based theories of modern scholars.

[lloydscott]

Just tried to explain this on FB. I tried using the same points but you did it amazingly. I’m using this video as a reference from now on thanks

[jamessheffield]

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures Irenaeus Florinus

[mikesam]

You did a great job with this video especially how you were able to summarize such important information.