It is with great pleasure that this article and this issue are dedicated to the memory of Huber L. Drumwright, Jr. The Gospel of John was his area of concentration. It is appropriate that we express our gratitude for his enormous contribution among us in this issue dealing with his specialty.

Authorship

The position of this article is that the Apostle John wrote the gospel as we have it, including chapter twenty-one. Technically the Fourth Gospel is anonymous. The author does not give his name. In the thirteen letters attributed to Paul there is a specific claim of authorship in the text of each. There is no such claim of authorship in this gospel. However, the anonymity is true only in the most technical sense. There are passages throughout the book whose most natural meaning is that the Apostle John is the author. The primary reason for holding to apostolic authorship is that the text itself apparently teaches this.

Although Johannine authorship was once widely accepted, this is no longer the case. Now only scholars of quite conservative orientation hold this position. Although direct apostolic authorship is frequently rejected today, many of those who reject it contend that a core of witness from the apostle himself is embodied in the gospel. It is claimed that apostolic authority is not dependent upon direct apostolic authorship. While apostolic authorship was prized by the early Christians, it was not an absolute requirement. Both Mark and Luke were written by persons outside the circle of the apostles. Neither early nor contemporary Christians have demanded that gospels come from apostles only. The reason for contending for apostolic authorship here is that several passages in the book seem to point to the Apostle John as author.

Internal Evidence

Internal evidence is the point where most students will decide on the authorship of the Gospel of John. External evidence is a factor, but what the text actually says will be decisive for most. The first and probably the most important item of internal evidence is a series of five passages which describe an unnamed disciple as the one “whom Jesus loved” (13:23-26; 19:25-27; 20:1-10; 21:1-14; 21:20-24). This is an arresting expression in its own right, and it becomes even more so in the final passage when this person is declared to be the witness behind the gospel.

The first passage describing someone as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” is 13:23-26. The setting is the Last Supper. The passage begins, “There was reclining on the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved.”^[1]All Scripture translations are the author’s own. From Mark 14:20 it seems that only the twelve disciples were present. Two observations about this unnamed disciple are relevant. The first is that he occupied a place exceptionally close to Jesus at a most crucial moment. The second observation is that this person was linked with Simon Peter. Simon Peter nodded to the beloved disciple and requested that he ask Jesus the identity of his betrayer. In the synoptic gospels Simon Peter and the Apostle John are often mentioned together. This close association between Simon Peter and the beloved disciple is enough to create the suspicion that the unnamed person is the Apostle John. Here are two significant factors which shall be repeated in other passages in this series: the beloved disciple was close to Jesus at an important time, and he was associated with Simon Peter.

The second passage which refers to a beloved disciple is 19:25-27, the crucial part of which can be translated, “Therefore, Jesus, having seen his mother and the disciple he loved standing nearby, said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son.'” Again the setting was an event whose importance was beyond description. Jesus was in the process of dying on the cross. Beside the cross stood several persons: the beloved disciple, Jesus’ mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus told both his mother and the beloved disciple that the beloved disciple would take care of her from that point forward. George R. Beasley-Murray contends that the disciple in this passage could not be the Apostle John because there were no apostles present at the crucifixion.^[2]George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), lxxi. The basis for denying the presence of John at the crucifixion is John 16:32a, “Behold, the hour is coming and it is already here that each one of you will be scattered to your own places and you will leave me alone.” Jesus spoke these words before he entered the Garden of Gethsemane. This prediction was accurate. However, it is pressing this passage much too far to make it preclude the presence of John at the crucifixion. The disciples did desert Jesus, but it takes no great stretch of the imagination to suppose that the Apostle John hovered on the edge of the crowd and then ventured to join the band of women at the foot of the cross. Another passage used in this same effort to prove that there were no disciples at the crucifixion is Mark 14:50, ”And they all left him and fled.” This took place in the Garden of Gethsemane after Jesus had been arrested. Once again this describes what literally happened. However, to take this as a basis for totally prohibiting the presence of the Apostle John at the cross is to draw a conclusion which grossly exceeds the evidence.

The third passage containing a reference to the beloved disciple is 20:1-10; verse 2 can be translated, “Then she (Mary Magdalene) ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and she said, ‘They took the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they put him.'” The scene is the resurrection. Mary Magdalene arrived first at the empty tomb. She did not suspect that Jesus had risen from the grave; she assumed that someone had removed his body. She ran to tell what she had seen to Simon Peter and to the beloved disciple. Again the event is of the greatest significance and Simon Peter is closely associated with the beloved disciple. However, there is one new feature which hints at the identity of the beloved disciple. The word translated “other” in the expression “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” bears examination. There are two Greek words which are translated “other” or “another”: altos and beteros. These words are sometimes used interchangeably; however, allos can mean another of a similar kind and heteros another of a different kind. The word for other in verse 2 is allos, the one that can mean another of the same kind. If there is a clue in this choice of a word, it is that it would be more appropriate with the Apostle John than with a person unknown to us.

The fourth passage referring to the beloved disciple is 21:1-14; the relevant verse 7a can be translated “Then that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Pete; ‘It is the Lord.'” Simon Peter had initiated an all-night fishing trip for himself, Thomas, Nathanael, the two sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples not identified. The miraculous catch of fish had just taken place. Simon Peter had not perceived that the person on the shore was Jesus. At this point the beloved disciple informed Peter that the one on the shore was Jesus. There are two relevant points here. The first is that once again the beloved disciple is closely associated with Simon Peter. The second is that the beloved disciple must be one of the sons of Zebedee or one of the two unnamed disciples.

The fifth and final passage to mention the beloved disciple is 21:20-24. Verse 20 reads, “When he had turned around, Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and he (Peter) said, ‘Lord, who is the one who will betray you?'” Several observations are in order. The final paragraph of a gospel is especially important, and once again the beloved disciple appears at a most significant occasion. Simon Peter is prominently linked with this person right to the end. The beloved disciple was present at the Last Supper, where only apostles were in attendance. Then there follows in verse 24 the announcement, “This is the disciple who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.”

Several features here merit comment. The beloved disciple is the eyewitness for the events related in the gospel and he is the one who wrote it. It has been argued that this expression simply means that the beloved disciple caused the gospel to be written. However, this is going to considerable effort to deny the plain and obvious meaning of the language. This still leaves room for the possibility that the author used a secretary in somewhat the same way that Paul employed one in the writing of his letters.

There is need to comment on the expression “we know that his witness is true.” Many consider this to be evidence for the existence of a group of devoted followers of the beloved disciple who wrote at least this verse and possibly much more. It is seen as evidence that a disciple or a group of disciples did the writing. This is a possible meaning for the pronoun ”we.” However, it is by no means the only possibility. It is also possible that the “we” is an editorial expression whereby the author declared that his colleagues in the ministry shared his confidence that his witness was true. Paul in his letters frequently extended greetings not only from himself but also from a close brother in the ministry who was with him at the time. The extra person was in no sense an author or co­author, but he joined Paul in sending greetings. In somewhat the same way, it is possible that John included his own close circle of fellow ministers in confirming the truth of the gospel. If the expression “we know” had originated from a hand other than the author of the rest of the gospel, it is possible that some manuscripts might fail to include it. However, that is not the case. There is no manuscript evidence for the later addition of this statement.

The five passages mentioning the beloved disciple have been treated. There are three other passages which merit attention. In each of these there is a mysterious failure to call the name of someone. The first of these is 1:35-40. This is the event where Andrew and an unnamed disciple spent a day with Jesus. There is nothing to distinguish this nameless person except that he spent a day with Jesus. The only relevant factor is that the author went to more effort to let someone remain nameless than would have been necessary if the name had been called. While it is true that the failure to call a name does not necessarily mean that this person is the author, it is enough to raise suspicion.

The next passage in this series is 18:15-16. This is the incident during the trial of Jesus when Simon Peter and an unnamed disciple followed Jesus and entered the palace of the high priest. This nameless disciple was known to the high priest, and he spoke to the woman minding the door and got Peter ad­mitted. Although this nameless person was not called the beloved disciple, he was associated with Simon Peter.

Some have wondered if a Galilean fisherman like the Apostle John could have been known to the high priest and acquainted with the woman who kept the door. Such an acquaintance would be surprising. However, it is possible that John was known in this unlikely place. Many of the events of world history have not been the predictable or the expected. A defender of Johannine authorship does not have to recreate the circumstances under which a disciple of Jesus became an acquaintance of the high priest and his household. It is within the realm of possibility and that is enough. It is stated twice in this gospel (20:30 and 21:25) that the gospel writer exercised selectivity in the events chosen for the record. This means that there were many deeds and teachings of Jesus not recorded in the gospel. If there were events in the life of Jesus which were not recorded, it is also reasonable to assume there were dimensions in the life of the Apostle John which were not recorded. He could have been known in that most unlikely place under circumstances unknown to us.

The last of the passages with an unnamed person is 19:35, ”And the one who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true, and that one knows that he is speaking truly in order that you might believe.” Here someone claimed to be an eyewitness of the crucifixion and to have witnessed the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus. This claim to be an eyewitness does not require that this person be the gospel writer nor the Apostle John. It is conceivable that this eyewitness simply shared the true story and that the gospel writer came to know the accurate account. Nevertheless, it seems likely that this is a subtle statement by the author that he was there, and that he saw the events he was describing. There is no way to overemphasize the importance of the events under discussion. It is important to tell the story as it really happened. If the person whose eyewitness is recorded were someone other than the author, it seems likely that-this person’s name would have been called. The purpose of this witness is the creation of faith. This is similar to the way that faith   is expressed as the purpose of the gospel in 20:31, “And these things have been written in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name.” There are various ways to understand the identity of the unnamed witness of the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus; however, it appears most likely that this was the author of the book and that this author was John.

Another internal factor is the failure of the Apostle John to be named in the entire gospel. An argument based on silence is inherently weak. However, the failure to mention such an important name seems deliberate. Peter is frequently mentioned and one would expect that John would be named approximately as often. In addition, John the Baptist is simply called John without the distinctive mentioned in the synoptics. The gospel writer has gone to considerable effort not to mention the name of someone. There are many conceivable reasons why the gospel writer would suppress a name. However, the most likely is that the author himself was that person. It is more likely that the Apostle John would suppress his own name. If a disciple of John or a group of disciples of John had written the gospel, that person or persons would not be so likely to suppress the name. Operating as we do at such a great distance from the actual writing, it is impossible to know precisely the motives of the author. Nevertheless, in the risky venture of guessing who was more likely to suppress the name of the Apostle John, he himself seems by far the most likely candidate.

It has been objected that the term ”beloved disciple” is not a natural self-designation.^[3]Ibid. It is possible to entertain sympathy with this objection without concluding that this removes the possibility of Johannine authorship. While this is not the way one might expect John to identify himself, it is also not the way one would expect anybody to be identified. A great many unexpected and surprising events have happened and it appears that this is another one.

External Evidence

It is now time to sketch the external evidence for clues concerning authorship. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the latter part of the second century, pro­vides the earliest and most important bit of external evidence. He stated without qualification that John, while living in Ephesus, wrote his gospel after the other gospels had been written.^[4]Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III. i. (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1965), 1. The witness of Irenaeus is important because there was just a single generation between him and the Apostle John. Irenaeus claimed that as a young man he sat at the feet of Polycarp, who in turn sat at the feet of the Apostle John. The testimony of Irenaeus has not been universally accepted, but it is worthy of consideration.

Other early witnesses to Johannine authorship are the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John and the Muratorian Canon. Both of these arose in the latter half of the second century. In approximately the same time frame, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria agree on John the Apostle as the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Although the external evidence for Johannine authorship is strong, one wishes that more of the ancients had shared what they knew about the authorship of this gospel. Itis possible that the early writers wrote so little on this issue because it never occurred to them to question what everyone accepted. To comment on something so obvious might have seemed like taking coals to Newcastle.

Two observations come from the external evidence. The first is that the earliest persons to comment on authorship read the same Fourth Gospel we read and said that the Apostle John wrote it. Of course this does not guarantee that they were correct in their conclusions, but their place in time makes their opinions quite interesting. With whatever advantage living in the second century conferred, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all declared that the Apostle John was the author. The second observation is that there was no rival name in the writings of that period.

Conclusions

It is now time to draw conclusions from these observations. All of the external evidence points toward Johannine authorship. This is confirming, but it does not form the bulk of this defense of Johannine authorship. While most of those who deny Johannine authorship do so on the basis of internal evidence, this defense is also based on internal evidence. Scholars have looked at the same evidence and drawn different conclusions.

The identification of the beloved disciple is crucial. This person appeared in five different passages. All of these passages represent crucial events in the redeeming work of Christ. Someone present on all these occasions was favored to be at places where extremely important events were happening. It would seem strange if a person placed at all these important occasions would be a disciple unknown to us. Another significant dimension is that Simon Peter is prominently mentioned with this beloved disciple in four of these five passages, the one at the cross being the only one where Peter was not present. The Apostle John and Peter were often mentioned together in the synoptics. It seems most natural to see the beloved disciple as the Apostle John.

In three other passages someone is mysteriously unnamed. The conclusion here is that these also refer to the beloved disciple even though the term does not appear. The failure to call the name of someone is accomplished at more effort than it would have taken to call a name. In one of these the unnamed person is also connected with Simon Peter.

Although it is freely admitted that the “beloved disciple” is not a self-designation which one might have expected from the Apostle John, it still seems to be the best interpretation. There is a cumulative effect in pondering these five passages, which mention the beloved apostle, and the three others, which feature an unnamed person. It seems highly unlikely that this gospel would place someone at so many crucial places if it were not felt that the identity of the person would be well known. Until recent times it was nearly universally recognized that all these passages represented just one person. It was also felt that the one person was the Apostle John and that he wrote the gospel. Apparently the writer felt that he had identified himself so that every reader would recognize him as the Apostle John.

There are difficulties and unanswered questions in any solution to the question of authorship. However, the solution that seems indicated by the text itself is that the Apostle John was the author.

Date of Writing

When one has concluded that the Apostle John is the author, the parameters for the other introductory questions have been considerably narrowed. It is obvious that the date of writing must fit within his lifetime. Although there is not enough evidence to arrive at a rigidly precise dating, there are some indicators which provide direction. Irenaeus provides the only external clue. He said that the Apostle John wrote his gospel after the other gospels had been written.^[5]Ibid.

There is a hint at dating in the nature of the material in John. The synoptics tend to relate more individual incidents and teachings in the life of Christ. John tends to relate fewer events and to give more extensive explanation of those events. This tendency is logical on the assumption that the synoptics were written first and that John wrote later. Although it is difficult to see any evidence that John used the synoptics as a source, he was probably aware of the synoptics, and he probably wrote to provide in-depth meaning to some very important events in the life of Christ. It is possible that he was consciously supplementing the synoptics. At any rate, it does appear likely that John wrote after the synoptics.

This still does not provide a suggested date for the writing. John A. T. Robinson has argued (convincingly for some and exasperatingly for others) that the entire New Testament was written before A.D. 70.^[6]John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976). Such an early date for John would fit nicely with apostolic authorship, but it is possible to hold to apostolic authorship with a somewhat later date. There really is not a great deal to go on after one has concluded that John was the last of the gospels to be written. A date of about A.D. 90 seems to be most likely.

Recipients

Although the recipients are not identified by name, there are some hints that point to the original leaders. In chapters 7-10 there is a concerted effort to show the struggle that Jews experienced in trying to decide what to do about Jesus. Reactions ran the gamut, from hostile rejection to acceptance of Jesus as the promised Messiah of Israel. Indeed, the entire gospel has to an unusual degree concentrated on the response that Jews made to Jesus. Ray Summers has observed, “The entire ministry of Jesus in this Gospel may be told in terms of controversy over Jewish doctrine and practice.”^[7]Ray Summers, Behold the Lamb (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), 16. It seems reasonable that these events from the life of Christ were selected because they were especially relevant to struggles being experienced by Jews at the time of writing. It seems likely that the recipients were Jews.

In two places a Hebrew term is translated into Greek (1:38, 41). This probably means that the recipients were Greek-speaking Jews; otherwise, there would have been no need for the translation. The earliest tradition suggests that the Fourth Gospel was written and first used in Ephesus. This is sufficient to conclude that John was written to Greek-speaking Jews of Asia Minor.

Although the original recipients were likely Jews, something more needs to be said. There are qualities about this gospel that make it especially appealing to all persons regardless of nationality. The teaching about the Logos in the Prologue would have stimulated the curiosity of many educated Greeks. John 3:16 is best known for the offer of salvation to “whosoever will,” but other passages also say essentially the same thing (4:14; 11:26; 12:46). Although this gospel was likely written initially to Jews, it also had from the beginning a special appeal to Greeks and persons of every nationality. John wrote in such a way that he appealed to all persons everywhere. It is possible that he was thinking only of Jews and that it was providential that he wrote in such a way that it applied to every person. However, it is also possible that he was from the beginning thinking of the universal application of the gospel. It seems certain that the gospel was directed initially to Jews, but it also contained   a strong appeal to all persons.

Purpose

There is a statement of purpose in 20:31, “Moreover these things have been written in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name.” The gospel was written to stimulate faith in Christ. Faith is essential at conversion and it is essential throughout the life of the believer. There is no fundamental difference between converting faith and continuing faith. However, it is possible to emphasize either one of these aspects of faith. In the case of the Gospel of John, it appears that the emphasis is on the beginning of faith or conversion. Much of the material is appropriate for helping Jews in their struggle to decide what to do about the claims of Christ. A proper response will lead to conversion. The same reasons that would stimulate a Jew to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah of Israel would also stimulate him to continue his faith.