Did Mary Magdalene author the Gospel of John?

Great Debates
41

  1. We don’t know that.

  2. Only in John is the “Beloved Disciple” mentioned per se. And, only in John is John never mention by name.

3 In all the Gospels it is Peter, James & John who are the favoured 3. Only those 3 got to witness the Transfiguration, etc. Same as at Gethsemane. And, we know it wasn’t Peter from various mentions of both in John, including Peter talking about the “Beloved disciple” and asking about him. Thus, indeed, the “Beloved Disciple” could possible James (Johns brother) but that James died very early, just after Jesus.

4 Now, it seems from internal evidence that John was written by the “beloved apostle” -or at least was made to appear that way. If either- it can’t have been James (everyone knew he died too early). Thus, the “beloved disciple” could only have been John. John lived long enough to have had a hand in the writing of his Gospel. John had his own group of followers at Ephesus, and internal writings and later Christian legend show that this Gospel likely came from there- or was part of their philosphy.

And, it was considered as fact by AD200.

Also note that it is just considered a “good guess” that in J9:22, 16.2 and 12.42 that what John is referring to is “Test Benediction” that was introduced by Rabbi Gamaliel II c85AD. Certainly the issue had come up earlier.

And now John is gaining far more support. I quote “The Oxford Comapnion to the Bible”: “Since roughly the middle of the 20th century support has been growing for the view that the basic tradition underlying John’s Gospel may be historically more reliable that previously acknowledged.” It goes on to show how the Quran scrolls, recent Archaeological discoveries and a new literary comparison all have turned contemporary thought around on the Gospel of John. John son of Zebedee is now widely considered to be (at least to some degree) the author of that Gospel. DtC is out of date on this.

42

I thought the James that died early (killed by Herod Agrippa, according to both Josephus and Acts) was Jesus’s brother James, rather than John’s brother James.

43

Nope- the James killed by Herod “With the sword” was James son of Zebedee, as told in Acts 12:1.

The early leader of the Church James (Brother of Jesus) was stoned in AD62 under orders from Ananus II, the then High Preist, according to Josephus.

44

Mark and Matthew also come from Papias (he was way off, though, on his description of Matthew and may have been referring to something other than the canonocal GMatt). Luke comes from Irenaeus.

45

I could be that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a disciple of the Apostle Matthew, as it seems that St. Matthew was active in founding the church in which the Gospel was written - likely Antioch.

Note that the Gospel of Matthew is what set the whole thing of 'who really wrote the Gospels" off. For centuries it was just assumed that the 4 Gospels were written bywhom they were attributed. But the GoM shows a strong command of greek, Rabbinical training, and a date after Matthew’s death. It is thus strongly doubted that St Matthew wrote it. It is not impossible that Matthew might have left some notes that the real author of the Gospel used. It is also not impossible that Matthew was the author of “Q”. He was likley the most literate of the 12 Apostles. If it hadn’t been shown that the GoM wasn’t likely written by that Apostle, then no one would doubt the others.

The Gospel of Mark- was ascribed to the “interpreter of Peter” called by that Saint as “my son Mark”. The source’s are both Papias and Irenaeus. There is no reason to doubt that this Gospel was written by that Mark- nothing wrong with the dating, the style the writing, etc. No solid proof, of course, also. Since there is no other reason to attribute this Gospel to a near unknown, it should be accepted.

Luke is attributed to a well-known follower of Paul, and certainly he was a Pauline disciple. It is thought he also wrote Acts. If so, there are a few odd anomolies, as “Luke” shows us there a Paul considerably different that Paul shows us in his own writings. Of course, it is possible there were two Lukes- one the “beloved Physician” and another the Luke who wrote. It is also possible that Luke and Paul weren’t as close and “inseparable” as Irenaeus wrote. There is no real evidence that that Luke didn’t write this Gospel- nor any solid proof he did.

John is the big question, really. There seems little doubt that someone wrote it “for” that Apostle- to glorify him, to show what he did, and some things point towards the Church John founded. Thus, if not by that Apostle- very very likely by someone who knew him well and perhaps worked off notes taken from Johns talking. OTOH- the dating is within that Apostle’s lifetime. Since it is doubtful that John was very literate*, and he was very old- him telling his story to a number of scribes/transcibers/secretaries explaisn much- John was old, his memory was that of an old man- brilliant in many things, lacking in detail. Several hands also explain the difference in style, and so does the fact it seems to have been re-edited a bit after.

*Literacy. This is something us Modern Americans have trouble understanding. Very very few men were capable of reading a scroll right off, or writing fast. That was the baliwick of trained scribes and scholars. Julius Ceasar’s contemporaries- many of who were well educated and even great scholars- were amazed that Ceasar could pick up a letter and read it right off, without going over it a few times. Since punctuation was pretty well unknown, what Ceasar did is harder than it sounds. And, sometimes they let words run together, and in Hebrew they didn’t even use vowels. However- the common man of the City could read and write a little. Period sources and especially grafitti show that. But the vast majority of those “literate” in ancient times would be considered today to be “functionally ILliterate”. Jesus was born of middle class parents in a nice sized town- Nazareth. Assuming he could read and write- albeit slowly and with difficulty- isn’t unreasonable. But Matthew was the only Disciple that really needed to be able to read & write with some facility.

46

There are many reasons to doubt the traditional authorship of Mark. “John Mark” is a fictional character created from a composite of “Marks” named in Acts, Philemon, 1 Timothy and 1 Peter. Of all those books, Paul had anything to do only with Philemon. There is no reason to connect the John Mark character of Acts with any of the Marks named in any of the Epistles and there is no reason to connect anyone named Mark with GMark.

Papias and Irenaeus disagree on the Mark legend, by the way. Papias’ says that Mark wrote down everything that Peter said in no particular order. Irenaeus said that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome after Peter was dead, so obviously there was more than one tradition circulating in the 2nd century.

There is more evidence which mitigates against the traditional authorship of Mark, namely its hostility towards Peter and the 12. Mark never misses a chance to talk about how thick and stupid the apostles are and how they didn’t understand Jesus. He also has Peter betray Jesus and flee after the arrest and it is important to note that Mark does not give Peter any redemption. Mark’s Peter is not given an appearance narrative and is not present at the empty tomb. He betrays Jesus. He flees. The end.

Mark is a Pauline Gospel with an anti-Petrine, anti-apostolic, anti-Jerusalem polemic.

There are issues of dating as well. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which puts it at or near 70 CE but some have argued that the passage better fits events that would put it into the 2nd century. Mark also uses the word “Christian” which didn’t come into use until faitly late (Paul’s letters call the Church “the Saints” or “the Elect.”)

Contemporary scholarhip no longer gives any credence to traditional authorship for Mark and there’s really nothing at all to support it. (And remember it is incumbant on those who would attach a specific author to an anonymous book to prove their case. Asserting that others can’t prove X didn’t write it is evidence of nothing).

Papias proves again and again to be an unreliable source. His description of Matthew is that of a sayings gospel written in Hebrew. Canonical Matthew is neither a sayings gospel nor is it written in Hebrew. It’s also dependent in at least three prior written Greek texts (Mark, Q and the Septuagint). The first two sources show that the author was not a witness (else he would not use secondary sources) and the use of the LXX (complete with preserved mistranslations) show that the author was not a Palestinian.

Luke admits in his first chapter that he was not a witness of anything and that he has compiled his gospel from prior written sources. One of those sources was Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities which was published in 94 CE. That puts Luke into the mid 90’s at least…long after Paul was dead. Luke does not ever claim to have known Paul and the legend that the author was a travelling companion of Paul probably stems from the “we” passages in Acts (a few passages in which the narrative person changes from 3rd to 1st) but it has been argued convincingly that using the 1st person plural to describe sea voyages was a common literary convention of the time.

There is also the issue of Luke’s demonstrably ahistorical Nativity.

I’ve argued in this thread already why the traditional authorship for GJohn can’t be supported. It’s very late, it shows anachronisms that an apostle could not have made. It’s the most anti-Jewish in its rhetoric, it shows multiple layers of composition, it shows Hellenistic theological influence and it shows awareness of gnosticism.

Contemporary scholarship has long abandoned traditional authorship for any of the gospels. Those traditions are now defended only by conservatives and apologists starting grom an a priori position of faith.