Today, critics often assert that the Gospel of John was written in the 100’s CE, not by the apostle John, but by someone, or even multiple writers, who weren’t even born until long after Jesus’ death. These critics, of course, deny the inspiration by God’s holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), “as they do also the rest of the scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16 NKJV). Although the Gospel of John was written anonymously, it is important for us to know when, and by whom, was the gospel of John written, if possible. Every extant manuscript that includes the beginning of the book names John as the writer. Was this “John” someone other than the apostle John? This article investigates and analyzes the facts.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WAS WRITTEN MUCH LATER THAN THE OTHER GOSPELS
The writer of John apparently had the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before him as he wrote, and he tried to fill in some of the gaps, because about 92% of the book of John contains unique material. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the late 100’s to early 200’s, reported that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other Gospels. “Last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain [in the other canonical gospels] . . . composed a spiritual gospel” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This, of course, means that the Gospel of John was written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke.read more
Did an Eclipse Cause Three Hour Darkness at Jesus’ Execution?
Did a Total Eclipse cause the three hour darkness at Jesus’ execution?
There was a mysterious three hour darkness during the time when Jesus was being executed. What caused this three hour darkness?
“It was now about noon and darkness came over the land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun”—Luke 23:44,45 NAB
The way the New American Bible (NAB) renders it,as above, one would think that the cause of the three hour midday total darkness was “an eclipse of the sun.” If the possibility of the supernatural is excluded, an eclipse would naturally be the only possibility. Could this have been an actual eclipse? Let’s examine the gospels very carefully regarding this d event:read more
Are the gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea accurate?
Although all four Biblical gospels report Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42:47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42), there are some skeptics and critics, such as the currently prominent agnostic Biblical “scholar” Bart Ehrman, who deny this fact. Experts point out that the more independent witnesses reports of an event that are available, the more likely the complete, composite report is true. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus at the time of his execution, and its aftermath. So was Peter, who used Mark as his writer of the second Biblical gospel. Luke was familiar with “eyewitness reports circulating . . . from the early disciples,” and says, “having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, Ialso decided to write an accurate account” (Luke 1:1-3 NLT). So Luke’s gospel was based on accurate eyewitness accounts.read more
Anonymous Folklore, or Eyewitness Accounts, of Jesus?
A popular myth is spread that the gospels, and the New Testament historical accounts, are simply anonymous folklore, embellished oral traditions and legends about a man named Jesus, who was likely a real, historical figure. As other articles on this site have shown, the entire New Testament was written within the lifetime of the Apostle John, who apparently lived on about 60-70 years after Jesus’ death. This is certainly believable since there are alive today a number of people who were living back during WWII, which ended in 1945.
Peter, one of Jesus’ most intimate of his 12 apostles, besides writing 2 general letters to Christians, apparently shared with his younger associate in Christ, Mark, details that enabled Mark to accurately record his gospel (1 Peter 5:13). Mark did not simply write any so-called anonymous folklore about Jesus. In Peter’s 2nd general letter to Christians, notice what he had to say:
“We have not depended on made-up stories in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw his greatness”—2 Peter 1:16 GNB
Although many were predictably beginning to “turn away from the truth, and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4 NIV), because “false teachers . . . will exploit you with fabricated words” (2 Peter 2:1-3), this was not the case with true Christians who stuck with God’s reliably revealed word, the Bible.
Luke, written by Luke, the meticulous researcher, was written to, and dedicated to, Theophilus, who was probably one of Luke’s patrons.
=&0=&things accomplished=&1=&down=&2=&from=&3=&beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1,2 NLT)
“With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3 NIV)
A patron would obviously know who he was patronizing, so Luke couldn’t have been anonymous! Furthermore, notice who Luke says he interviewed:
“Those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” (Luke 1:2 NIV).
Luke’s gospel was written by Luke, who interviewed many people who were actual eyewitnesses to the events that Luke recorded in his book. Luke did not record animus folklore, but actual eyewitness accounts.
“Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’ This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:23,24 NIV)
The anonymous disciple mentioned in verse 23, and other places in the 4th gospel, was known early on to be the Apostle John. Verse 24 says that he wrote the book. So the gospel of John was written by Jesus’ most intimate apostle, who was an eyewitness to many of the events recored in the gospel of John.
History says Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the books with those titles. People seem to have a highly variable standard in their assessment of what ancient writings are genuine, especially the Bible. What do we mean? Here is an example:
Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really write the Gospels, or were these names attributed later?
Most people accept Alexander the Great as a real historical figure. Yet, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after the Great One’s death 323 BCE. Legends about him developed centuries after these two writers. Yet, Alexander’s true, accurate history is viewed as being preserved for hundreds of years prior to these legends.read more
Different Resurrection Appearances – ‘Proofs,’ or Contradictions?
Some have claimed the different accounts of resurrection appearances are “proof” of contradictions
Some have claimed the different accounts of Jesus’ resurrection appearances in the four Gospels and 1 Corinthians are “proofs” these Bible books are riddled with errors and contradictions. If true, these would, in turn,” prove” the Bible not to be inspired of God, or infallible, as many Christians believe that it is.
The Bible itself says that these different resurrection appearances confirm the Bible’s inspiration by God.
“To whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3 NKJV, emphasis added)
When people point out the differences in the reporting in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians of which individuals saw the resurrected Jesus and claim these are contradictions, they actually point out something that defeats their own argument. Rather than contradicting one another, the differences in the reporting actually show that these five different accounts are independent of one another. They were written, not in collusion with each other to fabricate a myth or legend, but by five different men who had different perspectives. Each of the writers accurately recorded the events they wrote about from their differing perspectives.
Two of these writers were “apostles whom He had chosen” during His earthly ministry, “to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:2-3 NKJV), namely Matthew and John. “Mark, my son in Christ,” as Peter called him, was his recorder of his eyewitness account, so Mark’s gospel is essentially the apostle Peter’s eyewitness account. (1 Peter 5:13 NCV) Luke, who was not an eyewitness himself, notes that others had “set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.” (Luke 1:1-2 NLT) These writings were not legends, or rumors, they were accurate historical accounts based on eyewitness statements. Luke says that he, “having carefully investigated everything from the beginning … decided to write a careful account” (Luke 1:3 NLT), using accurate, truthful, factual material. Luke traveled extensively with the Apostle Paul, who had encountered the resurrected Jesus a couple of years after Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus personally selected Paul to be his “chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings, as well as the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15 NLT) Paul and Luke, during their extensive travels, spent time with many of the original early Christians over a period of a number of years. Furthermore, the fact is that the “Spirit of the truth” would “guide [them] into all truth” (John 16:13 NLT), as Jesus promised. So it proved to be, the New Testament writings were guided by the holy Spirit.
Another point worth noting is that each writer had to be highly selective in choosing which material to record. Why? John, using hyperbole, explains in his endnote: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25 NIV, emphasis added) John also made a similar admission when he stated the purpose of his writing: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.” (John 20:30 NIV, emphasis added) So John plainly states there are multitudes of Jesus’ activities that he did not record. Although the synoptics do not explicitly state it, it is obvious also that they had to be highly selective about which of numerous events in Jesus’ life to record.
If each Gospel account was identical, then why would the New Testament not have but one Gospel book? In that case, there would be no need to waste all the time writing materials and make four copies of the same identical account. The reason the New Testament includes these four Gospels is because there are four independent, accurate accounts of Jesus’ life, with major emphasis on the events of the week leading up to his execution, and the events that follow.
If the differences in the four Gospels and 1 Corinthians concerned the main points, there may be some cause for concern. Let’s take an example of this. Mark’s Gospel in its original form ended at 16:8, and included no resurrection appearances of Jesus. The other three Gospels and 1 Corinthians do record resurrection appearances of Jesus, with variations. Is Mark’s omission here a contradiction? No, omission is not tantamount to contradiction, in, and of, itself. Notice two key points:
None of the four Gospels, or 1 Corinthians, individually, give all the details regarding Jesus’ resurrection appearances. These accounts supplement each other. No group of four or five witnesses, news reporters, or news outlets will give identical reports when reporting a series of major events. They will agree on the main points, but the details will differ.
Yes, the four Gospels and 1 Corinthians differ in their reporting of who saw the resurrected Jesus. Critics claim these differences amount to contradictions. However, this is actually not the case. Why not? For one thing, most of the reporting done in the five accounts lacks specific time references, which pulls the rug out from under the so-called “chronological contradictions.”
While carefully examining the five accounts of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, we can come up with who saw Jesus first, etc. (John 20:1-18) But the exact chronological order of these witnesses is not the major event. The event of gigantic proportions is the resurrection of Jesus.
One alleged contradiction is Paul’s list of witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. He lists Cephas (Peter) first, so critics claim this contradicts John’s account in which Mary Magdalene first meets the resurrected Jesus. However, looking carefully at Paul’s account, we notice that he does not say that Cephas (Peter) saw the risen Jesus first. Paul states “that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas.” (1 Corinthians 15:4-5 NIV) Paul writes factually, without giving every detail, including an exhaustive list of different witnesses.
As to the critics’ assertion that none of the writers of the four Gospels met with the risen Jesus, again, a careful examination of the evidence proves this to be an invalid objection, as follows:
“The apostles he had chosen” were given “many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days.” “The apostles he had chosen” included Gospel writers Matthew and John. Peter was also an apostle, and we know Mark was his writer for the second Gospel. (Acts 1:1-3 NIV)
Risen Jesus commanded them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift…. Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem…. Those present were Peter, John… and Matthew.” (Acts 1:4, 12-13 NIV) They decided to select a replacement for Judas, “appointed to serve with us as a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:22 NJB) The new apostle had to be one who had witnessed the risen Jesus, so he could “serve with us as a witness to his resurrection.” “Us” here included witnesses Matthew, Peter and John.
Were there any eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection?
Critics of the Bible claim there are no eyewitnesses of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. This article takes an objective look at the facts.
“[The Gospels] were written down thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death . . . not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later”—Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenneum, 2005, pages 44-45, by Bart Ehrman
“There is not a sentence concerning Jesus in the entire New Testament by anyone who had ever met the unwilling King of the Jews”—Jesus and Yahweh, 2005, page 19, by H. Bloom
These are common claims today by those who are considered to be scholars, and which are popularly believed by many. On the other hand, New Testament Bible writers tell a very different story.
“They were handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses”—Luke 1:2 NIV
“The original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us=&0=&
“We were eyewitnesses of his majesty”—2 Peter 1:16 NIV
“We have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life . . . We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard”—1 John 1:1-3 NIV)
Much importance is given today to eyewitness reports, but what about New Testament Bible writers? These writers claim to either be eyewitnesses themselves, or to use eyewitness testimony, in much of their writings. Who, and what, should we believe about all of this?
Many non-believers, skeptics and critics, do not doubt the existence of the historical Jesus. It is the miracles, and most importantly, his death and resurrection that they deny. But the Bible contains much evidence that should be examined by any honest-hearted skeptic, especially if they are truly open-minded enough to give it a fair chance. To assist with this, let’s take a look at the witnesses to Jesus’ execution, burial, empty tomb, and resurrected state.
The placement of witnesses is very important in proving things. Police reports give much importance to eyewitness statements. Many local news programs are titled “Eyewitness News.” The Gospels and letters (such as 1 Corinthians) were all written independently. There were no “rules,” such as requiring strict chronological listing of all witnesses of Jesus in his resurrected state. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and 1 Corinthians made true and accurate statements in their books. There are no false statements, even though there are divergences. Divergent accounts are not tantamount to contradictions, as some critics and skeptics assert. In fact, virtually identical accounts would be highly suspect to be collusion, so the divergences actually are a testimony to Biblical accuracy.
Notice the similarities among the four Gospel accounts:
There are named witnesses at Jesus’ execution site Friday afternoon.
There are named witnesses at his burial Friday near dusk.
There are named witnesses at his newly emptied tomb around sunrise on Sunday morning.
There are named witnesses of Jesus in his resurrected state (including 1 Corinthians, but excluding Mark, because Mark ends at 16:8. Verses 9-20 are spurious additions).
There are unnamed, anonymous witnesses in each of the above categories.
Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received his information. (1 Peter 5:13) Peter regards Mark with such warmth and affection that he calls him his son.
This information didn’t come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of Jesus, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of Christian communities. Mark accurately preserved this material and arranged and shaped it.
The title “According to Mark” appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts, and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text.
Early church fathers all affirm Mark wrote the Gospel:
Papias (140)
Justin Martyr (150)
Iranaeus (185)
Origen
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria (195)
Eusebius (326) – quotes Papias saying “elder” (John) attributed to Mark
Second and third century books falsely claimed apostles as authors rather than secondary figures such as Mark.
“A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” (Mark 14:51-52) The “young man” here may be Mark. “Linen” clothes were a sign of wealth. He was from a wealthy family in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12-13)
Possible evidence of Mark as Peter’s “interpreter” is the simplified chronological order of events in Mark that mirrors Peter’s rehearsal of those events in Acts. (Acts 3:13-14; Acts 10:36-43)
Peter’s eyewitness accounts include many descriptive scenes in Mark, which are lacking in other gospels. For example:
Matthew was an eyewitness to many of the events he wrote about
Many “Bible scholars” claim that Matthew relied on Mark’s gospel as the primary source to write his gospel. Why would Matthew the tax collector, one of Jesus’ twelve apostles, rely so much on Mark’s account? The answer? He didn’t. He was an eyewitness of much of what he wrote, so there was no need for him rely on Mark, who was not an eyewitness, but a recorder of the apostle Peter’s memories (1 Peter 5:13). Both Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels “inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Matthew the Tax Collector
Matthew was presented as a tax collector – “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?'” (Matthew 9:9-11 NIV). The fact that he was a tax collector is very unlikely to be fabricated. This would have been very embarrassing for the writer. Tax collectors were classed with the worst of people in the Roman Empire. (Matthew 11:19; 18:17; Luke 18:11)
Matthew 23:37 – “Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often I wanted to gather your children” (NIV). How could this be true if Jesus had not visited Jerusalem previously, as some critics claim, during his ministry? The eyewitness, however, Matthew, puts Jesus, not only in Jerusalem, but in the temple complex, when he reports: “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there . . . The blind and the lame came to him at the temple and he healed them” (Matthew 21:12,14 NIV).
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, ‘This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.”” (Matthew 26:59-61NIV) – This statement or charge does not make much sense without John 2:19, which says: “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (NIV). The two false witnesses perverted Jesus’ statement, because “the temple he had spoken of was his body” (John 2:21 NIV). John’s gospel had not yet been written when Matthew wrote his gospel. Eyewitness Matthew, who did not need to rely on other sources, shows us why they were false witnesses – it was because of their misquote.
The title ascribing the first gospel to Matthew is in the earliest extant Greek manuscripts unanimously, without any contrary evidence (compare 2 Peter 3:2), and is possibly original. In fact, all extant manuscripts of the beginning of Matthew ascribe the gospel to him. The writership of Matthew wasn’t doubted until the 18th century.
Early church fathers acknowledged Matthew as the author with no hints of doubt. Perhaps no other ancient book has its writer more clearly and unaninously established than than the gospel of Matthew. The early church fathers accepted the authority of Papias (60-130), who acknowledged Matthew as the writer of the first gospel. Some ancient writers said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated to Greek. While this may be true, Matthew’s Gospel shows few signs of having been translated into Greek from an earlier Semitic text, and appears much more likely to to be an original Greek composition. Irenaeus (180); Eusebius (260-340), Athenagoras Pantaenus, Ignatius (110), Theophilus Origin, Tatian, Hegesippus, Tertulian, Clement of Alexandria, all testify via quotes to Matthew’s writership.
“It is not merely the merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the =&0=&
Subscriptions at the end of some later manuscripts state that Matthew wrote it 8 years after Jesus’ death. If accurate, this testifies that Matthew’s gospel was the first written.
Clues from the Gospel itself
“As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.” (Mark 2:14NIV) “After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus said to him.” (Luke 5:27NIV) – Both of these scriptures identify the text collector called by Jesus as Levi.
Matthew 9:9 – “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘=&1=&
The tax collector called Matthew appears to be the apostolic name Jesus gave him after he chose to follow Christ, similar to Simon being called Peter by Jesus. (Matthew 16:18) Only Matthew’s Gospel identifies Matthew as Matthew, Jesus’ name for him. Mark and Luke identify him as Levi, his birth name. The Gospel of Matthew contains clear evidence that the writer had a very strong ability in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and Greek, which would have been a prerequisite for most tax collectors.
Matthew used the more precise term according to its usage, nomisma, in addition to “denarion”, for the coin Jesus referred to in answering the tax question. “‘Show me the coin (nomisma) used for paying the tax.’ They brought him a denarius.” (Matthew 22:19)
Mark and Luke use the Greek word “denarion”, or “=&2=&in English. “‘Should we pay or shouldn’t we?’ But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. ‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ he asked. ‘Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.'” (Mark 12:15NIV)
“‘Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied.” (Luke 20:24NIV) This linguistic specificity strongly implies that the writer, Matthew, was conversant in the fine details of money and finance, a fact that supports the tax collector’s writership.
Popular agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman claims that,
“it seems unlikely that the uneducated lower-class illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions bearing their names.” read more
Divergent Details of Jesus’ Trial and Execution – Contradictions?
Are the divergent details in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John regarding Jesus’ trial and execution contradictions, or evidence of authenticity?
All of the gospels tell the same basic story of Jesus’ trial, execution and resurrection, but with divergent details. Are these divergent details contradictions? No. These divergent details give strong evidence the gospel writers are telling the truth, rather than copying from a single fictional account, or writing new fiction, in which the details are harmonized, or smoothed out
Below are some of the divergent, but true, details about the crucifixion of Jesus:read more
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/2048px-John_1-5c2d79b2c9e77c0001830496.jpg)
Today, critics often assert that the Gospel of John was written in the 100’s CE, not by the apostle John, but by someone, or even multiple writers, who weren’t even born until long after Jesus’ death. These critics, of course, deny the inspiration by God’s holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), “as they do also the rest of the scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16 NKJV). Although the Gospel of John was written anonymously, it is important for us to know when, and by whom, was the gospel of John written, if possible. Every extant manuscript that includes the beginning of the book names John as the writer. Was this “John” someone other than the apostle John? This article investigates and analyzes the facts.
