Peace047 – Who is the author of the gospel of John?

Question

It is believed that the author of the gospel of John was the apostle John, a son of Zebedee and the brother of James.

The following are from the Holy Bible, King James Version:

John 21:1 states: “After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; and on this wise showed he himself.” Who was this wise? Was he one of the “two other of his disciples” mentioned in the next verse?

John 21:2 states: “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.” John, one of the Zebedee brothers, is therefore not one of the “two other of his disciples” who were unnamed.

Who, in your opinion, do you think is the author of the gospel of John, and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

To Jim - Thanks a lot for an in-depth analysis of different versions of the Holy Bible.

Answer 1

You should read a more modern version - you are clearly misreading these verses. "on this wise" means "in this way" or "in this manner". For you, as for most, reading the King James Version - even the Oxford Revision, which appears to be what you are using - will lead you into doctrinal error simply because of the archaic language used.

Maybe this will help:

Here's my "what bible should I pick" answer:

First, I'll assume that you are not a member of a sect that demands using the King James Version or any other particular version. (Unfortunately, most of these sects do not actually use the whole King James Version.)

At this stage you want to decide what your bible should contain. Do you want a bible that contains 1) all scripture or 2) a selection of scripture? Besides editions that contain all scripture, there are editions that contain only new testament books, others containing only books from the Hebrew bible, and still others (the majority) which exclude several books in a somewhat cavalier fashion.

I will assume that you intend to read the entire bible, or at least wish to have the entire bible at your disposal. In this case, you must obtain a bible that includes the Apocrypha. There are some sects teaching that the apocrypha is not inspired scripture, and if you are a member of one of these sects then simply avoid reading these books. There is no other reason for avoiding the so-called apocrypha and every reason to get a bible which includes them. Here is a more in-depth discussion about this topic: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/dc.htm .

In my conclusion I will consider two cases:
1) You want a "complete" bible (Complete)
2) You don't care if the apocrypha is included or not (Open)

The next stage is to decide if you want a bible merely for reading and learning the text of the bible itself, or if you intend to study scripture more deeply and intensely in order to gain a greater understanding and to help you interpret the scriptures accurately. This is the difference between a "standard" edition bible and a (scholarly) study bible. I will refer to this as "purpose" when I make recommendations below.

Finally, you need to decide whether you want a translation that offers 1) ease of reading 2) literalness of translation or 3) accuracy of translation. I separate these even though they are not *necessarily* mutually exclusive. Different versions *do* (must) follow primarily one of these three criteria, however, and so should you when you make a decision. I will refer to this as "style" when I make recommendations below.

A note about the King James Version: although excellent for its time, and including nearly the entire body of scripture, as well as marginal notes from the translators providing possible alternate translations (making it a passable study bible), the King James Version uses 400-year-old English, 400-year-old scholarship (read: they didn't know as much as scholars today), and texts that lacked the last 400 years of archaeological discoveries. By no means was the King James Version the first English version of the bible. It's main advantage today is that most people use some form of the King James Bible and it is often useful to use the same version as others in discussions of scripture.

Recommendations: you can look at a fairly thorough comparison of technical details of different versions here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm , but what follows are my recommendations.

Comparisons of "literalness" of translation can be found here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/tool_commentary.htm#obt and here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/relg/bible.scale.html and here: http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg . An important note: "literal" does *not* equate with "accurate". A translation that is more literal does *not* equate to a translation that is more accurate. Indeed, in *any* language translation, literal translation is likely to lead to significant failings in accuracy of translation.

Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading (Ease of Reading is not a relevant style for a study bible purpose)
........Content: Complete
............CEV (Contemporary English Version) - may have difficulty finding a complete version in print http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha-Contemporary%2Fdp%2F1585160210%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556958%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 , but available as an e-book on CD http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible%2Fdp%2F1585160059%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556881%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 . Second choice: NAB (New American Bible) - not as easy to read but still easy, translation accuracy may be slanted slightly by Roman Catholic bias.

Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NIV (New International Version) - one of the easiest-to-read modern translations with higher marks for accuracy than most easy-to-read bibles

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible - one of the most literal translations with some of the most scholarly study notes, though somewhat archaic language. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - literalness uncertain but copious translator's notes help the reader achieve this goal. Deutero-canonicals incomplete.

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............NASB (New American Standard Version), Scofield Study Bible - most literal modern translation, but study notes are for the most part independent of the translation. 2nd choice: RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible - not as literal as the NASB but more comprehensive and scholarly study notes.

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............RSV (Revised Standard Version) - most literal complete version, but somewhat archaic language. Make certain to get a version that includes the Apocrypha. (All "Catholic" bibles include *most* of these books).

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NASB (New American Standard Version) - most literal modern-text bible, high marks for accuracy

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Regular Edition - copious study notes, word use demonstrates great concern for accuracy of translation, my favorite version, now hard to find. 2nd choice: NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - includes complete deutero-canonicals, excellent scholarly study notes on par with NJB, but translation suffers slightly from over-zealous use of "inclusive" language

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............Same as above. New Oxford Annotated available without the Apocrypha.

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - copious translator's notes may make this the most accurate translation, but requires study to absorb the translation; deutero-canonicals incomplete.

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation). 3rd choice: NIV (New International Version) - highly regarded non-biased translation, not as careful as NJB but easier to read.


Recommendations for the true bible student (who doesn't know Greek or Hebrew):
1) Software including NASB, KJV, NRSV, NJB and NIV - I use Ellis (lacks NIV) but there is at least one other *affordable* (under $100) package providing this selection. Make certain a Strong's Concordance is also included.

2) NJB Regular Edition - get it if you can, don't settle for the Standard Edition. (My review here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm )

3) NASB - make certain to get the latest version. Get it in print if your software doesn't have it. Most literal translation.

4) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - NRSV translation demonstrates over-zealous use of inclusive language but the study notes are invaluable, perhaps better and less biased than NJB.

5) Oxford Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha - the complete books of the 1611 King James Version with printers errors removed and spelling modernized. No marginal notes.

6) KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha - the complete 1611 edition, *including* marginal notes, with modernized spelling. Probably more valuable than 5), but it's a tough call.

7) A good bible dictionary, such as HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. There are a few equally good alternatives.

Honorable mentions:

1) Tanakh, 1995 edition, by the Jewish Publication Society - scholarly translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish scholars, very highly regarded.

2) NWT (New World Translation), With References - a very literal bible with some excellent though incomplete study notes. Shows significant but infrequent Jehovah's Witness bias and is available only from the WatchTower Organization (Jehovah's Witnesses). Reading this with the awareness of the bias (which is mostly documented in the bible itself) can be quite worthwhile to a student of the bible.

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 2

Evidence within the text (e.g., "the disciple whom Jesus loved") as well as the testimony of early Christians like Irenaeus and Polycarp indicate that the author of John's disciple was John the apostle. But this doesn't mean that John wrote every word. Just as Paul dictated most of his writings and rarely wrote in his own hand, it is likely that John had help with these manuscripts. This is also supported by the shift in person in the final two verses of the gospel (John 21-24-25).

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 3

John 21:20-24 describes the author as "the disciple whom Jesus enjoyed," and for the two historic besides as inner reasons it is known to be John the Apostle, between the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:10).

Answer 4

It is the Apostle John....It is not my opinion it is a fact. The book of John was written in about 85-90 AD. It was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and before John's exile to Patmos where he wrote the book of Revelations.

Answer 5

The consistent testimony of the early church is that John, son of Zebedee is the author.