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
Who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, two letters of the 27 books of the New Testament? Many critics say that they written by a pseudonymous writer, or writers, falsely claiming to be the apostle Peter, and especially is this said about 2 Peter.
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” (1 Peter 1:1). ” . . . as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1 NAB). The writer of 1 Peter clearly identifies himself by name as “Peter”, and also “an apostle of Jesus Christ” that is, one of Christ’s original 11 faithful apostles, and “as a fellow presbyter”, that is, an older, mature Christian man, having the position in the church of “elder” (1 Peter 5:1 most translations), and as a “witness to the sufferings of Christ”, meaning he was actually there in person alongside Christ when Jesus was on earth. These descriptions fit the apostle Peter.
“Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours” (2 Peter 1:1 NAB). The opening verse of 2 Peter attributes its writing to the same apostle Peter as the first letter does. Notice the name “Symeon”. This is the same Hebrew name used to describe him when, “The apostles and the presbyters met together” and “James =&0=&Obviously, the apostle Peter is referred to here by the same name he uses to introduce his second letter.
“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am =&1=&The writer of 2 Peter clearly says this is the second letter he is writing, which implies that 1 Peter is the first letter he wrote.
“We had been eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the =&2=&The writer of 2 Peter counts himself as an ‘eyewitness’ who was present at Jesus’ transfiguration. The gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke place Peter at the Transfiguration scene (Matthew 17:1-11; Mark 9:2-11; Luke 9:28-36).
The writer of 2 Peter says, “our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life” (2 Peter 1:14 NLT). Only the apostle Peter could have made such a statement (John 21:18,19), keeping in mind Jesus’ prediction from 35-40 years past.
Saying, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15), suggests a close relationship with the apostle Paul, which fits the apostle Peter.
Critics, however, have generated more controversy over the writership and canonicity of 2 Peter than any other book of the New Testament.
Early Church Views of the Writership of Peter’s Letters
First and Second Peter both claim writership by Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1,17-18), and “a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). The early church unhesitatingly received 1 Peter as authentic, and there is also some evidence of the acceptance of 2 Peter as authentic. Some examples are as follows, but notice the proof of the very early acceptance of both 1 and 2 Peter as authentic:
Papias (60- 135 CE), about 110 CE, noted that “Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle” [Eusebius, History, 2.15]. (1 Peter 5:13).
Clement of Rome (30-101 CE), about 95 CE, in 1 Clement, paraphrased 2 Peter 3:1-4
The Didache (an anonymous, early-second-century CE work dealing with a variety of doctrinal and practical matters of import to the early Christian church) about 95 CE, cited 1 Peter 2:11
Papias, about 110 CE, cited 1 Peter
Polycarp (69-156 CE), about 130 CE, cited 1 Peter.
: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.
