Who Wrote The Gospel Of John? Not A Son Of Zebedee

The short answer:

 Internal evidence: John Zebedee cannot be the author because he appears in John 21:2 so breaking the established rule that the author remains anonymous, which again re-appears in John 21:24. Inconceivable that a work of such literary brilliance would be so clumsy. The further internal evidence in the Bible is that the style of the author of the letters of John and the Gospel are very similar. Many assume they are the same writers. However, the writer of the letters never calls himself an 'apostle'. He calls himself an 'elder'. Titles are important. 

External evidence: The reason why the apostle John, the son of Zebedee came into the frame was primarily because of Eusebius in the early 4th C deciding that Papias referred to this John as the author which increased its authority. However neither Polycrates, (130-196), nor Papias himself (early 2nd C), nor the Muratorian Canon (170), nor Irenaeus(130 - 202) cite John Zebedee as the author which is very surprising given the importance of establishing the reliability of all the Gospels;  instead they point to John The Elder.

The long answer...

A teacher’s confession

For many years I have taught that the Gospel of John was written by John the Son of Zebedee. By written, I did not mean that the fisherman apostle had penned every word of the Gospel, but that he was the authority behind the Gospel. He was the witness.

The arguments for this are well known[1]. The author is clearly from a Jewish background, had detailed knowledge about Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD70, and was an eyewitness to the main events in the Gospel story. John Zebedee ticked all the boxes. Then if you take 1:14 where we read, ‘We beheld his glory’ as being a reference to the transfiguration, then from the three disciples who were with Jesus on the mountain, only one of them was left after AD 64: John Son of Zebedee.

I would ask students to imagine a situation where the apostle was getting old and being visited by some of his followers to make sure they can either find his written testimonies about Jesus, or to hear again his accounts of his time with the Messiah. This made John the Son of Zebedee the authority behind the Gospel. I would then suggest that an unknown and gifted editor took these eye witness accounts  - oral and written - and worked them into the Gospel we have today.

In this context the usual objections to John Zebedee being the author were dealt with fairly easily. For example the familiarity with Greek thought and literary brilliance, not expected in a fisherman, is answered by the unknown genius editor. If the anonymous disciple with Peter in John 18 is the author, then there is the trickier question as to how a fisherman would know the high priest. The answers I gave were perhaps there was a member of John Zebedee’s extended family working for Caiaphas; or, a suggestion I was keen on: the Zebedees provided fresh fish for the high priestly family, an important luxury for aristocrats. The detailed knowledge of Jerusalem is a rather limp objection as Galilean Jews had to go to their capital regularly for the festivals. All male Jews knew their Jerusalem well.

I taught this; but I always felt a little uneasy

at the end of the course when teaching 21:24.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them

There is no doubt over what this means. The Beloved Disciple who had rested on Jesus’ breast during the last supper (21:20) had not just been a witness, as I had been teaching. He had ‘written’ his account down. He was the author.

The text won’t allow John Zebedee and a brilliant editor to stay together. It either had to be John Zebedee being the author; or someone else all together. I had an instinctive reservation about John Zebedee being the author because while there is no reason why a fisherman could not be familiar with Greek culture, there is so much literary genius in the Gospel it is not easy to see how someone with that sort of a background would have been able to pen such a finely crafted literary work[2]. Call this snobbery if you like; but the hesitation was there. John Zebedee as the main witness was fine; as the sole author and creator of the fourth Gospel, I hesitated.

I have now read Richard Baukham’s excellent, ‘The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple’[3] and my hesitation has turned into certainty.

John Zebedee did not write the fourth Gospel.

Baukham is a serious scholar and he shows how both the external and internal evidence push John Zebedee out of the author frame.

The internal evidence completely rules out John Zebedee

The internal evidence from the text is glaringly obvious, but such is the weight of tradition it has remained under a haze.

Baukham’s point is the Gospel has a clear convention: the author will only appear in the narrative anonymously. We know the author is a part of the story from 1:14 (We have seen his glory); 19:36 (‘He who saw this has testified...’; and 21:24 (This is the disciple who is testifying to these things...). And by 21:24 it is no surprise that we are not allowed to know the author’s name. He was referred to anonymously at the start of the Gospel. He stays anonymous at the end of the Gospel.

That is the rule in this Gospel. And that is why the internal evidence excludes any possibility of John Zebedee being the author. This means that John 21:2 deals a double death blow to the idea that John Zebedee is the author. Here we have a list of disciples who were with Peter by the Lake of Galilee.

Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathaniel of Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.’ (21:2)

Strike one to John Zebedee is that he is mentioned in this list. To insist that John Zebedee is the author violates the convention that has been clearly been established about anonymity. It not just violates the established convention, but it also cheapens the artistic skill of the author. After the experience of such literary masterpieces such as John 9 or John 11 it is inconceivable that our genius author is suddenly going to break his own creative rule in such a clumsy fashion at the start of John 21, only to return to the rule again at the end of the same chapter where the author’s name is not mentioned. I for one am not ready to believe this. Just this evidence on its own is compelling enough.

But this verse has a second strike: ‘and two other disciples’. In this list two of the disciples are anonymous, and from the story that follows it is clear the author was there. It is established that the author appears in the narrative, but always anonymously. That is the internal evidence. Now in this list we have two anonymous disciples. It is safe to conclude emphatically that according to the internal evidence one of those disciples was the anonymous author.

Supporters of John Zebedee are by now slumped in the corner as far as the internal evidence is concerned. They have one last punch – 1:14. ‘We have seen his glory’. If this verse is about the transfiguration, then it has to be John the Son of Zebedee.

This nettled me, so I emailed Richard Baukham and after several months, with an apology for the delay, the answer came. I should have seen it

Here is Baukham’s reply:

I  think 1:14 must be interpreted in the light of later statements in this Gospel about revealing glory, e.g. 2:11; 11:40; 17:2. In this Gospel Jesus' glory (i.e. the glory of God reflected in Jesus his Son) is revealed in Jesus' miracles but especially in his death.(email sent 17^th February 2014)

It is hard to disagree with this. It is well known that in John’s Gospel Jesus’ hour of glory, is the cross. So when Judas disappears into his night, Jesus says, ‘Now the Son of Man has been glorified’, and then at the start of his prayer he says, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your name’, and, as is also well known, the whole of the cross narrative is written in a way to underline Jesus’ authority and kingship.

 So when the author says, ‘We have seen his glory’, he does not have the transfiguration, which gets no mention in his Gospel, in mind, but the death of Jesus. This is especially important because in 19:36 the author makes absolutely sure that we go back to 1:14 by stressing that he saw the crucifixion with his own eyes. ‘We have seen his glory’. Yes, the author saw Jesus’ death. He was the only writer of the Gospels to be there. And he saw its significance. So he makes sure we understand that it is from the glory of Jesus’ temple the blood and water flow.

There is further confirmation that 1:14 and 9:36 are linked when one considers the wording for 21:24. Here we have the confirmation that the Beloved Disciple is the author, and exactly the same wording (we know his testimony is true) is used as in 19:36. This is the author who has witnesses these things, and the most important thing he witnessed in terms of seeing Jesus’ glory was the crucifixion.

Wider internal evidence in the Bible aggressively deletes John the apostle as being the author of the Gospel. Most scholars assume that the writer of the Gospel, and the letters are one. The style is almost exactly the same, there is the same insistence on dualism, and there are even similar phrases, such as, 'my children'. Paul and Peter introduce themselves in their letters as, 'apostles'. This is their title and titles in any organisation are important. The writer John does not introduce himself as an 'apostle', but as an 'elder'. Just this alone rules out John the apostle as being the author of either the Gospel or the letters. 

It is hard to deny that the internal evidence in both the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament point away from John the son of Zebedee being the writer. There is though one last argument that is sometimes put forward. This is that Jesus was only with the twelve apostles for the last supper, so the 'beloved disciple' who later tells us he is the author, must have been an apostle. However there is no verse in any of the Gospels that say just the twelve were with Jesus. In fact in Mark it is absolutely obvious that there were more people in the room, for when asked about the betrayer Jesus says, 'It is one of the twelve'. If only the twelve apostles were in the room then this statement would have been wholly unnecessary. Jesus says this to distinguish the twelve from others who were in this 'large upper room'. Culturally also this makes a lot more sense. Social gatherings in the East have very fluid guest lists. 

Wherever you look in the Gospel and the Bible, all the evidence points away from John Zebedee as being the author of that Gospel. 

The early external evidence: it does not confirm John Zebedee as the author

Zebedee supporters can point to the external evidence and say that for the church has always said that the apostle John Zebedee was the author.

That is true, but only since the early 4^th C when Eusebius, the father of church history, wrote that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Since then, most churches have followed Eusebius’ lead.

But what was the church’s view before the 4^th C? Here Richard Baukham shows persuasively that the external evidence in fact points decisively away from John Zebedee.

It’s a bit of a detective story, but well worth following.

Reference in early church documents to the author of John’s Gospel are found in a letter of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (130 – 196) to Victor Bishop of Rome; the writings of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (early 2^nd C) that we know from Eusebius; the Muratorian Canon, (a list published around 170 listing the canonical books of the New Testament); and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (130 – 202).

Polycrates (130-196)

Polycrates, writing to Victor about the date of Easter, wants to show how important his city of Ephesus is by listing all the great Christians who are buried in there. First on his list is Philip the Evangelist, and second is ‘John who leant back on the Lord’s breast who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.’ This John must be a reference to the Beloved Disciple (13:23) whom we know is the author of the Gospel (21:24).

The fact that Polycrates has John second on the list is important. For if this 2^nd C Bishop thought the Beloved Disciple was John the Apostle and author of the Gospel, then he would almost certainly have ranked him before Philip The Evangelist. But he comes second.

The reference to John being a priest who wore the ‘sacerdotal plate’ is even more significant. John Zebedee was the son of a fisherman who lived in Galilee. Priests who served in the temple were usually connected to the high priestly family based in Jerusalem. To try and make John Zebedee a priest is to do violence to the evidence. There is no tradition anywhere of John the Apostle also being a priest. Polycrates therefore never thought of John Zebedee as the author of the Gospel.

So why though does Polycrates state that John was a priest who wore the sacerdotal plate? Baukham has a sensible answer to this.

‘The tradition that John the beloved disciple was a high priest is neither metaphorical nor historical, but exegetical.’

Baukham explains that in the early church there was an exegetical tradition whereby Christian teachers merged people with the same name into one identity. It still happens today. There are plenty of examples. Mary of Bethany is often merged with Mary Magdalene and the unnamed ‘sinner’ who washes Jesus’ feet in Simon’s house in Luke’s Gospel often ends up being called Mary. Judas, who was Paul’s host in Damascus in Acts 9:17, becomes Judas Jesus’ brother in the 2^nd C ‘Acts of Paul’. John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, becomes the Zechariah who is murdered in Matthew 23:35.

By the time Polycrates is writing his letter to Victor, the same has happened to the Beloved Disciple. Polycrates calls him John – and then calls him a priest. Why? The church in Ephesus was keen to find their John recorded in the New Testament and find him in Acts 4:6.

With Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander and all who were of the high priestly family...

If this is true, then we can be even more certain that Polycrates did not mean that John was a son of Zebedee: because John Zebedee was one of the prisoners brought before John the priest.

Later of course this exegetical tradition did more work on John and changed him into the apostle; but this clearly had not happened when Polycrates was writing to Victor.

Papias (early 2^nd C)

All we know about Papias comes from Eusebius, the man who has cemented John Zebedee as the author of the fourth Gospel into the church’s psyche. It is a surprising place to look for evidence against John Zebedee being the author.

But Baukham shows that Eusebius tells us more than perhaps he was planning. We find out from Eusebius that Papias is almost certainly familiar with John. So, Papias’ list of disciples starts with Andrew, then Peter, then Philip, which follows the order of John not Mark.

There is then a very interesting argument from silence. Eusebius passes on what Papias had to say about the origin of Mark and Matthew.

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ....So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”[4]

Bauckham points out that for Papias the issue of ‘order’ was important. Mark did not write ‘in order’ and it is clear there were different translations of Matthew’s Gospel from the Hebrew, because ‘everyone interpreted (translated) them as he was able.’ In other words there is an issue about differences between these two Gospels.

Baukham then speculates that Papias had more to say about the differences between the Gospels and argues this must have included a discussion about John’s Gospel. At the end of his section about Papias, Eusebius says this:

And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise.[5]

For Baukham the interesting question is – what did Papias use the testimonies from John’s first letter and Peter for? The word testimony suggests they were used to give credence in an important discussion. In the discussion of why eye witness accounts differed Papias would have first wanted to have established that Mark and Matthew were reliable sources. So for Mark Papias used ‘testimonies’ from Peter. Bauckham suggests that the verse Papias used was 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter confirms his relationship with Mark, so supporting Papias’ contention that Mark was a reliable interpreter of Peter, an eye-witness.

This then helps us see the significance of Eusebius’ reference to Papias’ use of the testimonies from the first Epistle of John. For this virtually proves that Papias did discuss John’s Gospel: as Papias used 1 Peter 5:13 to confirm the reliability of Mark, so he used 1 John 1: 1 – 4 (...what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes...) to confirm the reliability of John’s Gospel.

The Muratorian Canon (170)

Baukham goes on to show that a third primary source, the Muratorian Canon, supports his case that there the primitive church was concerned about the differences in the Gospels, so supporting his interpretation of the Papias section in Eusebius.

After discussing the origin of the fourth Gospel, which we will refer to later, the author of the canon felt it was necessary to reassure his readers regarding the differences in the Gospels.

And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things have been declared in all [the Gospels].....[6]

We know Papias was concerned with the lack of order in Mark’s Gospel and the problem of translation of Matthew’s. But the major issue for Christians when it comes to Gospel harmony has not been Matthew or Mark, it’s been John’s Gospel. Hence as soon as the author of the Muratorian Canon comes to deal with John’s Gospel, there is this need to deal with the issue of ‘various elements’, i.e. the obvious differences between John’s account and the Synoptics.

Bauckham is right to suspect that Papias did in fact make reference to John’s Gospel. He is also probably right to suggest that Papias’ testimony from John’s First epistle is 1 John 1-4, because there is a specific reference to this verse in the Muratorian Canon.

What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you. For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the marvellous deeds of the Lord, in their order.[7]

Furthermore the last three words here are significant. The Muratorian Canon states not only that John was an eye witness, something of importance to Papias, but also that John wrote about the deeds of the Lord – ‘in their order’. Unlike what we learn from Papias about Mark’s ‘order’ problem and Matthew’s translation problems, John is accepted in the very early church as the one who wrote ‘in order’.

When it came to the differences between the Gospels, there is evidence here that the earliest sources preferred John. It is very likely that Papias talked about this, but he is censored by Eusebius for at least three reasons. Eusebius wants to draw a line under the issue of differences in the Gospels, and settles the matter by arguing that John’s Gospel was written to fill in the gap prior to John the Baptist’s imprisonment. However every reader knows there are other differences and it is clear that if Papias agreed with the Muratorian Canon which is likely, then Papias preferred John. Eusebius doesn’t.

And finally and most pertinently to our discussion, Bauckham argues that Papias disagreed with Eusebius as to who wrote the fourth Gospel. Eusebius insisted it was John Zebedee. Papias, Bauckham argues, believed it was John the Elder, hence the censoring.

We are introduced to John the Elder by Papias, as quoted by Eusebius.

 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”[8]

Eusebius then underlines for his readers that there are two Johns in this list, and that John the Apostle, is the ‘evangelist’, i.e. the author of the Gospel, and the other John is a junior figure ‘outside the number of the apostles.’

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.[9]

There is good reason to question Eusebius’ certainty. For as Baukham has shown there are clear links between the way Papias sees things, and the Muratorian Canon. Indeed it is likely the Muratorian Canon relied on Papias to a certain extent. Written well over a hundred years before Eusebius the evidence of the Muratorian Canon carries serious weight in this discussion.

The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it.[10] 

This section puts a large question mark over John Zebedee being the author, because the John who wrote the Gospel is called a disciple, while Andrew is called an apostle. The writer makes a distinction. If John Zebedee wrote the Gospel, why does not this author call him an apostle, to give the Gospel apostolic authority?

Eusebius insisted the author was John the Apostle; but the Muratorian Canon points clearly to the other John mentioned by Papias, John the Presbyter. It is also interesting to note that as the Muratorian Canon calls this John a disciple, so does Papias. Hence Bauckham concludes that Papias saw John the Presbyter, later the Bishop of Ephesus, who is buried there, was the author of the fourth Gospel.

Irenaeus (130-202)

The writings of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (130-202), a very senior figure on the early church landscape, also point away from John Zebedee as the author of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus intellectually took on the Gnostics and drew the boundaries between orthodoxy and heresy that the church acknowledges today. The reliability of the Gospels was obviously a crucial part of the debate with the Gnostics and interestingly whenever Irenaeus talked about John as the author of the Gospel (and the letters and Revelation) his favourite expression is – ‘a disciple of the Lord’. He uses this phrase 22 times; or, as happens 34 times, he calls the author John. He never says that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, son of Zebedee, one of the twelve. Given that Irenaeus’ main aim in his writings was to counter the spurious claims of the Gnostics this is more than surprising if indeed John Zebedee was the author. It virtually proves that Irenaeus – who is much closer to events than Eusebius – did not think of John Zebedee as the author, but – as with Papias and the Muratorian Canon – he recognised John The Elder, ‘a disciple of the Lord’ as the author.

There are though a few occasions when Irenaeus does give the author of the fourth Gospel the rank of an apostle, and this has been used by the church, along with Eusebius, to fix the authorship on John the Son of Zebedee. However in the context of taking on the Gnostics, the use of the title apostle really means ‘reliable authority’, or one who was an eye witness. This is why when talking about the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out (Luke 10: 1-23), Irenaeus also calls them ‘apostles’. If it was fixed in Irenaeus’ mind that the author of the fourth Gospel was indeed the apostle John, son of Zebedee, he would have always used the title apostle.

Summing Up The External Evidence

Our detective story amidst the external evidence of the 2^nd C is coming to an end. From this brief look at the early references to the origin of the fourth Gospel it is fair to say that neither Polycrates, nor Papias, nor the Muratorian Canon, nor Irenaeus confirm the apostle John as the author, as you would expect them to in their concern to establish the reliability of the Gospel. Furthermore the use of the expression ‘disciple of the Lord’ by Papias, the Muratorian Canon, and Irenaeus when referring to the author of the Gospel points away from the Apostle John, and to John the Elder.

Writing over a hundred years later Eusebius made the apostle John son of Zebedee the author. Eusebius was following an exegetical tradition in the early church to merge identities with the same name, and was keen to give the fourth Gospel authentic apostolic authority. To have the author as a disciple, who was not an apostle, was too much of anomaly for the simplicity tradition demanded. John the disciple, the probable author, was demoted; John the apostle, despite the internal evidence that screams against him, was installed.

A final irony for the master of irony

And now we come to a final irony. The evidence does point to John the Elder as the author; but we know very little about him. After all the ink has been spilt in searching for the author of the fourth Gospel, the most likely candidate still remains fairly anonymous for us: a fitting situation for the man who was such a master of irony in his Gospel.

Of course this John was obviously well known in his own generation. He was a bishop in Ephesus, a major city, and there was even a rumour in the church that he would not die till Christ returned (John 21). For us though only a few things can be discerned.

He was a disciple, like the seventy; and though not one of the twelve, he was very much a part of a core group. This is seen clearly in the list in John 21:2 where interestingly we do not have the twelve minus Judas, but seven (a perfect number), and in that seven there are only four apostles (Peter, Thomas and the Zebedee brothers, James and John). The other three are Nathanial, and two anonymous disciples, one of whom is John the Elder. This list wholly undermines any assumption that the twelve apostles had any exclusive access to the Jesus story.

John The Elder is close to the other disciples; and of course he is very close to Jesus. He is the Beloved Disciple, who was next to Jesus on his last night. This gives us the clue that he was almost certainly the host of the evening, which is why he was sitting next to Jesus, which means he was probably a man of means from Jerusalem. And clearly a man with friends in high places: Polycrates was wrong to suggest John was a priest, but he was ‘known to the high priest’ (18:16). He was also able to stand near Jesus’ place of execution without fear of arrest, despite his three year association, known even to the maid at the door, with the would-be king from Galilee.

These few clues suggest that John The Elder, the Beloved Disciple, who testified ‘to these things and has written them’ (21:24), was from the higher classes. And he has shown that their education and literary skills would compete with the best. Indeed, such is the brilliance of John’s Gospel, it is fair to say that this literary tradition has given the world one of the finest books ever written.

The author, active but anonymous in his narrative, would enjoy that irony that though we can now give him a name, he is still essentially anonymous to us; but, like the friend of the bridegroom, he would rejoice that his anonymous work has introduced so many to his friend, Jesus of Nazareth.

---

[1] They are outlined in all the major commentaries (Beasley-Murray; Brown; Carson; Witherington). The argument of B.F Westcott at the end of the 19^th C, as given above, has had a lot of influence among evangelicals.

[2] This is made exceptionally clear in R. Alan Culpepper’s ‘Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A study in Literary Desgn’ 1983, Fortress Press

[3] Baker Academic, 2007. Chapter Two

[4] See http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusbius_on_papias.htm

[5] http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusbius_on_papias.htm

[6] See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian-metzger.html

[7] See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian-metzger.html

[8] http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusbius_on_papias.htm

[9] http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusbius_on_papias.htm

[10] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian-metzger.html