From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: The Historical Jesus V:    Was John an Eyewitness?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:15:03 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of John

This is the fifth in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

John is perhaps the most interesting of the Gospels because he appears
to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and because the work has
a remarkable unity of style that bespeaks a single author, or possibly
a group of closely allied authors (the Johannine school).

Also, the arguments concerning how much redaction has occurred or the use
of sources by John are still going on.  It is impossible for me here to
comment about this, except to include quotes concerning Chapter 21,
as this directly impinges on the authorship/eyewitness question.

The relative prominance of Greek philosophy vs. Jewish Wisdom tradition
vs. Egyptian vs. Qumranian influences in John's thought can only be hinted
at here.  The current consensus appears to downplay the role of Greek philosophy
in favor of the others.  The Epistles of John appear to be addressing
heretical teachings of a group called the Docetics (allied to Gnosticism)
but John itself is probably not doing so.  Other people probably have
more recent information on this fascinating topic.

[1](177)
	Since the evangelist stands at the end of a process of tradition,
Palestinian, Hellenistic, and Jewish-heterodox-Baptist, it is impossible to
accept the traditional (Irenaeus) ascription of this gospel to John bar
Zebedee. ... The gospel remains anonymous.  The traditional authorship is
once more a second century attempt the secure apostolic authorship for a
work it wanted to include in the Canon.
...Chapter 21 is widely considered to be a later addition.  The style,
vocabulary and content are thoroughly Johannine, but 20:30f looks like the
concluding summary of the gospel.  Jn 21 begins a completely new series
of resurrection narratives located in Galilee and unrelated to the Jerusalem
series in ch.20.  At the very least, 21:214 is an editorial addition.  More
likely it indicates that ch. 21 as a whole is an appendix added by the
Johannine school.  Its purpose is to identify the beloved disciple with
the writer of the gospel.
...a date 90-100 still the most probable...

[2](174)
	That the Gospel received yet another, final editing is clear from
the duplicated conclusion (20:30-31; 21:25). ...It has often been argued
that...the Beloved Disciple must therefore be identified with John.  But
chapter 21 does not make this identification,...It was the later church
tradition which first made this identification.  It is met for the first
time around A.D. 180 in Irenaeus...
...the time around A.D. 90 must be taken as a *terminus post quem*.

[3](255)
	From the formal point of view, therefore, ch. xxi gives the
impression of simply being a supplement; in fact its aim is to preserve
for the Church -- though in a modified form -- the original work that
is opposed to the traditional conception of the Church. 
...The theological conception underlying the work as a whole rules out
the possibility that it is based on the testimony of an eye-witness...
...It was the Church redaction that first made it possible to consider him
as an actual figure among the circle of the disciples.  The work was
probably written in the East towards the end of the first century.

[4](151)
	None of the Gospels makes a direct reference to its author, but in
John there are indirect indications of a special witness of Jesus's career,
and particularly of his death. ...Do these references mean that the Gospel
of John was written by an eyewitness?...That seems scarcely likely,...
Rather, what we have in this book is the end product of two or more
generations of treasuring the Jesus tradition and at the same time of
interpreting it in altered circumstances.

[5](128)
	...The traditional defence sought to establish the theological
authority of the gospel by proving that its author was an eyewitness.
Thus the truth of the gospel and its historicity were equated.
...In spite of the impressive stylistic unity of the book, there is a
widespread consensus that the text of the gospel is multi-layered and
reflects a complex history of the growth of tradition.
...The final chapter is often regarded as an appendix or epilogue.
...The real hermeneutical issue is lost, however, when the central problem
of the chapter is translated into one of authorship. ...I would rather argue
that a different layer of tradition is highly probable, but that the chapter
has been shaped with the entire Gospel already in mind and with a 
conscious theological purpose.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu