Author of the book of john by book

The auThor of The book of john: by PasTor dean

Content

Introduction

The author of the book of John

The evidence to the authorship

The disagreement of the authorship

Dating of the Gospel of John

Bibliography

Introduction In this book we will discuss a lot about the author of the gospel of John. I have learned that there are a lot of views about the author of this book. Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, John of Patmos and John the Evangelist were three separate individuals. They believe in the evidence suggests that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation. The believe that the author of Revelation identifies himself as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Johnâ&#x20AC;? several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. They were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. The author is not named in the book. Church tradition says that the author was the apostle John. It is noteworthy that the person of John is not mentioned by name within the Gospel account. When he is referenced, he is simply called "the disciple whom Jesus loved". I believe that the readers will learn and see more evidences of who is exactly the author of the gospel of John in this book.

1. The author of the book of John Of all the gospels, the Gospel of John is the most disputed concerning authorship. Christian tradition believe that John the Apostle. And also known as John the Beloved Disciple is the author of the Book of John. Many people believe that he was the last surviving of the Twelve Apostles, and believe that he died around the age of 94. He is the only apostle to die naturally. He was the son of Zebedee. His mother is Salome according to the Eastern Orthodox, and brother of James the Greater, another of the Twelve Apostles. “People are interested in people and like to hear their stories. The appeal of a good novel, movie or biography is that it draws one into the story so that we identify with one or more of the characters. Some authors write simple to entertain readers, while others write in order to persuade their readers of a particular viewpoint. The author of John’s gospel falls in the latter category. John explicitly states his purpose in 20:30-31.”1 Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, John of Patmos and John the Evangelist were three separate individuals. They believe in the evidence suggests that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation. The believe that the author of Revelation identifies himself as “John” several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. They were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. The author is not named in the book. Church tradition says that the author was the apostle John. It is noteworthy that the person of John is not mentioned by name within the Gospel account. When he is referenced, he is simply called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20).

Cornelis Bennema. Encountering Jesus: Character studies in the Gospel of John. Paternoster, 2009. 22.

5 “The author presumed that it would be known who wrote it, either by the style, or by the sentiments, or by its resemblance to his other writings, or by the messenger who bore it, so that it was unnecessary to affix his name to it.”2

2. The evidence to the authorship 2.1. Internal, Direct Evidence “The testimony in proof that John was the author falls naturally under two head: The external, i.e. historical; and the internal. The external comes to us in the earliest writings, more or less fragmentary of the Christian age.”3 A. This evidence is from John 21:20-24 “21. Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on his breast at the supper……24. In the context showing that this is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testifying to these things and wrote these things. The author himself testifies what he wrote in the gospel of John. After we

Albert Barnes. Note, explanatory and practical, on the general epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. New York: Harper&Brothers, 1850. 131. 3 Henry Cowles. The Gospel and Epistles of John: with notes, critical, explanatory and practical. New York: D. Appleten &co.,1876, 1.

6 have learned and understood that this is true. And also in this context said that “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” We can see that he is not only the author, but also the authority standing behind the gospel. He was the one who understood the circumstances. He leaned back on Jesus’ breast to talk to Jesus during the meal. He was very close to Jesus. And Jesus loved Him very much. “The internal evidence that the author of the Fourth Gospel was the Apostle On centers around the personage referred to in the Gospel as the “beloved disciple.” There are two aspects to the evidence: (1) that the beloved disciple was the author and (2) that the beloved disciple was the Apostle John.”4 B. This evidence is from John 19:25-35 “…..26. When Jesus then saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby,…. 35. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.” In this passage, we see that the author identifies “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” He confirmed that his testimony about Jesus is very true. His testimony is also worthy of belief. When Jesus was dying on the cross, around him stood four women and one man, identified as the one whom Jesus loved. It said in John 19:35 that after Jesus died on the cross, the author affirms later that the testimony of the man who witnessed Jesus’ death is true. John is the only one man who present at Jesus’ crucifixion. He testified the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 2.2. We see that the two evidences individuals referred to in John 19:35; and in John 21:24 show us that there is the same author, same man , who wrote the gospel of John. They both bear the same designation, which is “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Jack W. Stallings. Robert E. Picirilli. The Randall house Bible Commentary: The gospel of John. Randall house publications, Nashville, TN 1989, 2.

7 A. The evidence in John 13:23, 25 “ There was reclining on Jesus’ breast, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved…” This disciple who leaned back on Jesus’ breast at the supper to talk to him in John 13:25. It refers that this disciple was sharing a triclinium. This is a couch that two or three people reclined to eat) B. John 21:2-7 “…..7. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” The "one whom Jesus loved" was one of the disciples who went fishing with Peter. He was one of the disciples named or one of the two unnamed disciples, but he was not Peter.” 2.3. It should be added that, since in John 20:2 the designation “the one whom Jesus loved” is set in apposition with “the other disciple,” In this passage, it is possible that the reference to “another disciple” in John 18:15-16 could be a self-designation of the author. 2.4. The author is one of the twelve disciples. He wrote the gospel designating himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” It seems that the editor did this in order that the readers might know that the author was an eyewitness to the events described.

8 2.2. Internal, Indirect Evidence There is some internal, indirect evidence to consider with respect to the authorship of the Gospel of John. We can see that the author of this book knows a lot about what he wrote in the book. 2.2.1. The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine. A. The author is familiar with the city of Jerusalem we can see in John 5:2; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1, 28; 19:17, and he also familiar with the Temple in John 2:14, 20; 8:2, 20; 10:23. B. The author is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea, which is shown in John 1:28; 2:1, 12; 3:23; 4:20; 11:54; and 12:21. 2.2.2. The author is acquainted with the social and religious conditions of Palestine in John 4:9; 7:35; 11:49; 18:13, 28, 31, 39. He is also familiar with Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs in John 1:41, 46; 4:9, 25; 6:15. 2.2.3. The author seems to have been an eyewitness to the events that he is describing. But the general impression is that the accounts derive from an eyewitness. We can see this in John 1:29, 35, 39; 7:14; 11:6; 12:1; 13:1-2; 19:14, 31; 20:1, 19, 26. The author also has a good knowledge of the apostolic group in John 2:11, 17; 4:27, 33; 6:19, 60-61; 16:17; 20:25; 21:3, 7. It shows us that the author himself was one of the twelve disciples. He can also was a follower of Jesus who had known or contact with the twelve. This shows that the author was an eyewitness and have a good knowledge of the apostolic group. 2.2.4 “The author knows about Judea (Bethany, Jerusalem), Samaria (Sychar, Jacob’s well, and the custom that Israelites and Samaritans “do not share things in common,”

9 4:9), and Galilee (Bethsada, Cana, Capernaum, Nazareth, Sea of Galilee/Sea of Tiberias) He is even aware of the negative cachet of Nazareth and Galilee (1:46; 7:31, 41-43)”5 We have learned that the author knows a lot about Judea because, “the author of John used “Judea” to designate a much-smaller area right around Jerusalem. According to this gospel Jesus came from Nazareth about sixty miles north of Jerusalem in the area called Galilee. Between Galilee and Judea is the area called Samaria. The route from Galilee to Jerusalem went through Samaria.”6 2.2.5. The author seems to have written his gospel in Aramaic or a very Semitic type of Greek. He has a lot of knowledge on these languages. And as we look at the details relating to the Aramaic or Semitic features of the gospel there is much dispute; the following is a list of those grammatical features of John that most scholars agree suggest that the text is translated Aramaic or bears the influence of an author who thought in Aramaic but wrote in Greek. A. Transliterated Aramaic words in John1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13, 17; 20:16; 21:2. B. Beginning sentences with verbs, which we would not see in English translation. This is a standard feature of Hebrew or Aramaic to begin a sentence with a verb. C. Excessive use of the Greek conjunctions, which corresponds to the frequent use of the Aramaic as a conjunction D. The exceptional simplicity of the Greek and the limitations of its vocabulary These show us that these linguistic data suggest the author’s mother tongue was not Greek But his mother tongue was Aramaic. 5

Jerome H. Neyrey. The gospel of John. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, 2007. 2 Jack C. Trickler. A Layman’s guide to who wrote the books of the Bible? When? Why? United Methodist Publishing house, 2008. 12. 6

10 â&#x20AC;&#x153;On the other hand, John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus to his disciples is highlighted rather than his general preaching-of-repentance ministry. Jesus' initial contact with the disciples is quite different from the calling of the first four disciples as reported elsewhere. The discourses of Jesus in John are mainly apologetic and theological rather than ethical and practical, as in the Sermon on the Mount. Only seven miracles are recounted, The events of the Last Supper, the betrayal, the hearing before Pilate, and the Crucifixion are reported quite differently from the other three Gospels; and the Resurrection account has only slight resemblance to the others.â&#x20AC;?7

2.3. External Evidence The external evidence identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel of John. There is nobody in the church seriously questioned the authenticity of the Gospel of John until the rise of biblical criticism in the eighteenth century. 2.3.1. In his rebuttal of Autolycus, Theophilos of Antioch c. 181 attributed the Gospel of John to John, by whom he no doubt meant the apostle John, the son of Zebedee.

1981, p. 19

Merrill C. Tenney. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

11 2.3.2. Irenaeus (130-c. 200) identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John. Some have disputed the accuracy of Irenaeus' claim that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the fourth gospel, arguing that the gospel was written by another John who also resided in Ephesus. Eusebius rejects Irenaeus' assertion that Papias was "a hearer of John," meaning John the apostle, since Eusebius claims that he knows for a fact that Papias had no contact with the apostles. Immediately following, Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias in which he makes mention of two Johns; Eusebius interprets this to mean that there were two Johns associated with Ephesus: John the apostle and a John referred to as the elder. Some scholars have suggested that Irenaeus confused these two Johns, wrongly assuming that the John to whom Polycarp referred was John the apostle, when he was really John the elder. It is argued that it was this other John who actually wrote the fourth gospel and he later became confused and identified with John the son of Zebedee. But, even assuming that Irenaeus was mistaken when he affirmed that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle, this argument is too conjectural to be convincing. It has also been argued that the disciple known as the disciple whom Jesus loved in the Gospel of John is another John than John the son of Zebedee, who, although not one of the twelve, had a special relationship with Jesus, which explains the epithet "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or "the beloved disciple." “The Johannine literature comprises the Gospel of John, the Three Letters of john, and the book of Revelation. Only Revelation refers to its author by the name “John” (cf. Rev 1:1, 4,9). Scholarly opinion would regard this John, and elder writing from the island of Patmos (Rev 1:9), as someone other than the author of the Gospel and the Letters, but

12 tradition gradually associated all the so-called “Johannine” documents with the disciple of Jesus, John the son of Zebedee.”8 This other John was present with Jesus at his last Passover meal and even shared a triclinium with Jesus, which explains why he is identified in the Gospel of John and then in the early church as the one who leaned back on Jesus' breast. It is argued that this John later known as the elder made his way to Ephesus and there wrote his gospel. Eventually the two Johns became identified in the early church. Given all the evidence, it is difficult to believe that the obscure figure of John the elder was the author of the fourth gospel and not the better known John the son of Zebedee. Two apocryphal works explicitly identify John the author of the fourth gospel with John the son of Zebedee, which reveals the presupposition of the early church that there were not two Johns associated with Jesus but only one. “The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.”9

3. The disagreement of the authorship 8

Francis J. Moloney, Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina. The Gospel of John. A Michael Glazier Book Published by the Liturgical Press, 1998. 2 9 Robert Kysar. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920

13 As we see there are a lot of internal and external evidence, many scholars still believe that John the son of Zebedee could not have written the gospel of John because, as an account of the life of Jesus, it is unhistorical and as such is incompatible with having an eyewitness origin. While it is sometimes conceded that some events described in the gospel have an historical basis, many scholars hold that the Johannine discourses are historical fabrications, reflecting the theological views of the anonymous community that produced it. The main reason for rejecting the historicity of the discourses is that the Johannine Jesus says things about himself that the historical Jesus allegedly would never have said. He makes statements that presuppose his pre-existence with God in John 3:1113; 6:32-33,41-42, 46; 7:33-34; 8:23, 26, 29, 38, 42, 56-58; see 1:15. In addition, he understands himself as the unique son of God, having a relationship with the Father that no human being can have John 5:17-47; 8:19, 28; 10:31-39. His opponents even interpret his claim to have God as his Father as making himself equal to God in John5:18. This line of argumentation, however, begs the question because it presupposes what the historical Jesus could have believed and said about himself. It would seem that the evidence best supports the position that John the son of Zebedee, as a supplement to the gospel of John, chose to include in his gospel accurate summaries translated into his distinctive Greek of what Jesus said in some of his more extended and private conversations with other people. Besides, Jesus twice refers to himself as â&#x20AC;&#x153;sonâ&#x20AC;? in the gospel of John, so that the Gospel of John is not exclusive in this regard.

4. Dating of the Gospel of John.

14 “The author of the gospel seems to have had in mind those Christians who held the Christian faith in a defective way, which needed to be corrected. He was also alive to the questions that gnosticism posed and these also urgently needed to be addressed. An incipient gnosticism seems to pervade many parts of the gospel but in addressing this and other issues the author draw upon his own knowledge and experience and wrote his gospel to confirm apostolic and orthodox faith that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” and to induce belief in him (John 20:31).”10 The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. “As Hug supposes the banishment of John to have taken place under Domitian, he of course must suppose the Gospel and the first Epistle not to have been written until about A.D. 97 or 98.” 11Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria. As we have learned that John is the author and probably John wrote for the Ephesians or maybe the churches in Asia Minor in general. Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos. The Gospel of John is one of four gospels in the Holy Bible and is the fourth book in chronological order presented in the New Testament. The Gospel of John is a unique perspective of the life of Jesus Christ. It varies from the other three gospels of Matthew,

John Glyndwr Harris. Gnosticism: beliefs and practices. Sussex academic press, 1999. 175.

Johann Leonhard Hug. Introduction to the New Testamet. Paternoster, 2009. 356.

15 Mark and Luke, by focusing more on spiritual themes rather than historical events. The author of this gospel was the disciple John, one of the twelve disciples that followed Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. The author identifies himself in the last chapter of the gospel: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24). John was also known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the disciple whom Jesus lovedâ&#x20AC;? John 13:23, 19:26, and 21:7. Perhaps this explains the uniqueness of John's record of the life of Jesus. The book is filled with first hand accounts of experiences with Jesus Christ that occurred during Christ's 33 years of life on earth. Scholars generally accept that the Gospel of John was written between 50 and 85 A.D. The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus

16 were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic. It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century. The Gospel of John begins with a magnificent prologue, which states many of the major themes and motifs of the gospel, much as an overture does for a musical work. The prologue proclaims Jesus as the preexistent and incarnate Word of God who has revealed the Father to us. The rest of the first chapter forms the introduction to the gospel proper and consists of the Baptist's testimony about Jesus (there is no baptism of Jesus in this

17 gospel--John simply points him out as the Lamb of God), followed by stories of the call of the first disciples, in which various titles predicated of Jesus in the early church are presented. The gospel narrative contains a series of "signs"--the gospel's word for the wondrous deeds of Jesus. The author is primarily interested in the significance of these deeds, and so interprets them for the reader by various reflections, narratives, and discourses. The first sign is the transformation of water into wine at Cana in John 2:1-11; this represents the replacement of the Jewish ceremonial washings and symbolizes the entire creative and transforming work of Jesus. The second sign, the cure of the royal official's son John 4:46-54 simply by the word of Jesus at a distance, signifies the power of Jesus' life-giving word. The same theme is further developed by other signs, probably for a total of seven. The third sign, the cure of the paralytic at the pool with five porticoes in chapter 5, continues the theme of water offering newness of life. In the preceding chapter, to the woman at the well in Samaria Jesus had offered living water springing up to eternal life, a symbol of the revelation that Jesus brings; here Jesus' life-giving word replaces the water of the pool that failed to bring life. John 6 contains two signs, the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the waters of the Sea of Galilee. These signs are connected much as the manna and the crossing of the Red Sea are in the Passover narrative and symbolize a new exodus. The multiplication of the loaves is interpreted for the reader by the discourse that follows, where the bread of life is used first as a figure for the revelation of God in Jesus and then for the Eucharist. After a series of dialogues reflecting Jesus' debates with the Jewish authorities at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7; 8, the sixth sign is presented in John 9, the sign of the young man born blind. This is a narrative illustration of the

18 theme of conflict in the preceding two chapters; it proclaims the triumph of light over darkness, as Jesus is presented as the Light of the world. This is interpreted by a narrative of controversy between the Pharisees and the young man who had been given his sight by Jesus, ending with a discussion of spiritual blindness and spelling out the symbolic meaning of the cure. And finally, the seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus in ch 11, is the climax of signs. Lazarus is presented as a token of the real life that Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life, who will now ironically be put to death because of his gift of life to Lazarus, will give to all who believe in him once he has been raised from the dead. After the account of the seven signs, the "hour" of Jesus arrives, and the author passes from sign to reality, as he moves into the discourses in the upper room that interpret the meaning of the passion, death, and resurrection narratives that follow. The whole gospel of John is a progressive revelation of the glory of God's only Son, who comes to reveal the Father and then returns in glory to the Father. The author's purpose is clearly expressed in what must have been the original ending of the gospel at the end of John 20: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name." Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue John 1:1-8 apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room John

19 14:31; 18:1. To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament. “Tradition states that the gospel of John is written by the beloved disciple. No one is quite sure this beloved disciple is. Most people agree that the beloved disciple is John. (The phrase, “the beloved disciple” doesn’t appear until the middle of the book after the resurrection of Lazarus and because of this some people are convinced that the beloved disciple is Lazarus.)”12 The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry John 3:22 before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus' public ministry lasted for several years; that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John 18:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel 12

Carole McDonnell. Seed of Bible study. Appleten & Co., 2008. 137.

20 constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this. â&#x20AC;&#x153;on the other hand, there is much to show that valuable historical materials not supplied by the Synoptists were used by the writer, and these may have gone back to the hand of John the apostle, or John the disciple, as is sometimes supposed, they were different men.â&#x20AC;?13

The gospel of John is not simply history; the narrative has been organized and adapted to serve the evangelist's theological purposes as well. Among them is the opposition to the synagogue of the day and to John the Baptist's followers, who tried to exalt their master 13

Edgar Johnson Goodspeed. The Gospel of John. The university of Chicago press, Chicago, Illinois, 1917.

21 at Jesus' expense, the desire to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and the desire to convince Christians that their religious belief and practice must be rooted in Jesus. Such theological purposes have impelled the evangelist to emphasize motifs that were not so clear in the synoptic account of Jesus' ministry, e.g., the explicit emphasis on his divinity. The polemic between synagogue and church produced bitter and harsh invective, especially regarding the hostility toward Jesus of the authorities. Pharisees and Sadducees who are combined and referred to frequently as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Jewsâ&#x20AC;? These opponents are even described in John 8:44 as springing from their father the devil, whose conduct they imitate in opposing God by rejecting Jesus, whom God has sent. On the other hand, the author of this gospel seems to take pains to show that women are not inferior to men in the Christian community: the woman at the well in Samaria (John 4) is presented as a prototype of a missionary John 4:4-42, and the first witness of the resurrection is a woman John 20:11-18.

22 Bibliography Barnes, Albert, Note, explanatory and practical, on the general epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, New York: Harper&Brothers, 1850, 131. Bennema, Cornelis, Encountering Jesus: Character studies in the Gospel of John. Paternoster, 2009, 22. Cowles, Henry, The Gospel and Epistles of John: with notes, critical, explanatory and practica,. New York: D. Appleten &co.,1876, 1. Goodspeed Edgar Johnson, The Gospel of John, The university of Chicago press, Chicago, Illinois, 1917, 41 Harris John Glyndwr, Gnosticism: beliefs and practices, Sussex academic press, 1999, 175. Hug Johann Leonhard, Introduction to the New Testament, Paternoster, 2009, 356. Kysar, Robert. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, 919 McDonnell, Carole, Seed of Bible study. Appleten & Co., 2008, 137. Moloney, Francis J., Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina. The Gospel of John. A Michael Glazier Book Published by the Liturgical Press, 1998, 2 Neyrey, Jerome H., The gospel of John. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, 2007, 2 Stallings, Jack W.. Robert E. Picirilli. The Randall house Bible Commentary: The gospel of Joh,. Randall house publications, Nashville, TN 1989, 2. Tenney, Merrill C., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 19 Trickler, ack C., A Laymanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guide to who wrote the books of the Bible? When? Why? United Methodist Publishing house, 2008, 12.

Author: Pastor Dean. AA. BA. MDIV. DMIN

Bachelor’s in Liberal Arts of Biblical Studies Southern Christian University Awarded the “ West Creek Award In memory of W.B and Velma West, excellent teachers of the Bible and Biblical Languages Founder and CEO of FLYHIGH MINISTRIES . Masters in Divinity at Southern Christian University Iraq Combat Veteran, OIF III, Calvary Scout Recon.