The earliest evidence for John being the author of the Gospel of John is to be found in Papias, as quoted by Eusebius. In this passage he alluded to John, who was one the disciples of the Lord, and also to an elder John, a disciple of the Lord, who was his contemporary. Eusebius deduced that the two persons were different individuals, and cited the existence of two tombs in Ephesus, both of which were called John’s in his day. Since Papias’ works are not now extant, no independent judgment can be formed on the meaning of the statement. Possibly Eusebius misunderstood him. There is no reason why an apostle could not have also been an elder, and Papias may have been saying, that whereas the majority of the apostles did not survive their oral testimony, one or two of them remained until his day as the last witnesses in the flesh of what Jesus had said and done.
The theory that the fourth Gospel was the product of some unknown presbyter by the name of John and not of John the apostle cannot be regarded as established. All the testimony of the fathers from the time of Irenaeus is overwhelming in favour of the Johannine authorship. Clenent of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Origen (ca., A.D. 220), Tertullian (ca., A.D. 200). and the Muratorian Fragment (ca. A.D. 170), agree in attributing the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee.
The Author
From the Gospel itself certain facts about its author may be educed. First, he was a Jew, who was accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, although the Gospel was written in Greek. Very few subordinate clauses appear in its text, and not infrequently Hebrew or Aramaic words are inserted and then explained. The author was familiar with Jewish tradition. In 1:19-28 he referred to the Jewish expectation of a coming Messiah. He knew the Jewish feeling toward the Samaritans (4:9) and their exclusive attitude in worship (4:20). He was acquainted with the Jewish feasts, which he explained carefully for the readers.
Second, he was a Palestinian Jew, who has personal acquaintance with the land and especially with Jerusalem and its environs (9:7; 11L18; 18:1). He was familiar with the cities of Galilee (1:44; 2:1) and with the territory of Samaria (4:5, 6, 21). He seems to have been quite at home in the country which he described.
Again, he was an eyewitness of the events which he recorded. Both in 1:14, “we beheld his glory…,” and in 19:15, where he spoke in the third person, “he that hath seen hath borne witness,” he claims to be stating what had been part of his personal experience. Small touches scattered through the Gospel confirm this impression. The hour at which Jesus sat at the well curb (4:6), the number and size of the pan at the wedding of Cana (2:6), the weight and value of the ointment that Mary used on Jesus (12:3,5), the details of Jesus’ trial (chaps. 18,19) are points which have little to do with the main narrative, but which indicate the observer’s eye.
Who was the author? Evidently he was with Jesus from the very first of His career, for he mentions episodes that antedate the opening of the account of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics. He must have belonged to the group of disciples mentioned in the narrative. According to the final chapter, he is identified with the “beloved disciple.” who was a close associate of Peter, and who had been very near to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23), at the trial (18:15,16), and at the cross (19:26,27). Only one of Jesus’ most intimate associates would fit these circumstances. James was killed early in the history of the church (Acts 12:2). Peter, Thomas, and Philip are mentioned so frequently in the third person that no one of them could have been the author. Although the author did not name himself, he took for granted that his readers knew who he was and that they would accept his authority in the matters of which he wrote. John the son of Zebedee is the best remaining possibility, and on the assumption of his authorship of the Gospel the following conclusions are founded.
The biography of John is fragmentary like all other Biblical biographies. He was one of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19,20), a fisherman of Galilee, and of Salome, who was probably the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother (cf. Mat.27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). He grew to manhood in Galilee and was a partner with his brother and with Andrew and Peter in the fishing business. He may have belonged first to the disciples of John the Baptist, and possibly was the companion of Andrew mentioned in John 1:40. If so, he accompanied Jesus on His first tour in Galilee (John 2:2), and later with his partners quit the fishing trade to follow Him (Mat.4:21,22).
The episodes of Jesus’ life in which John shared are too numerous to list and treat separately. He was with Jesus in Jerusalem during the early Judean ministry. Perhaps the interview with Nicodemus was held at his home. He was a participant later in the mission of the Twelve, as described by Matthew (10:1,2). He needed Jesus’ counsel as much as any other of the Twelve, for he and James sseem to have possessed unusually ardent temperaments. Jesus called them “sons of thunder,” or, by a more literal rendering, “sons of tumult” (Mark 3:17). Mark does not assign any reason for the giving of this name to thjem, but the usage of the Hebrew phrase “son of …” usually means that the term which completes it qualifies the man, a “sons of Belial” means “worthless fellows.” Their bigotry and truculence were revealed in their readiness to rebuke the man casting out demons because he did not follow with them (Lue 9:49), and in their de4sire to call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan villages that would not receive Jesus (9:52-54). Both rashly asked their mother to petition Jesus that He would grant them the seats of primacy in His kingdom (Mat.20:20-28). These crudities of spirit, even though a motive of loyalty to Him and to His work may have activated them, were sharply rebuked by Jesus.
At the Last Supper John occupied a place of privilege and of intimacy next to Jesus (John 13:23). At the trial he obtained access to the court of the high priest because he was known to the family (18:15,16). Perhaps he had been the representative at Jerusalem of his father’s fishing company, and so had become acquainted with all of the prominent households of the city. Apparently he witnessed the trial and death of Jesus and assumed the responsibility for Jesus’ mother, when Jesus committed her to his care (19:26,27). He stayed with Peter during the dark days of the interment, and with him was one of the first visitors at the empty tomb. There, as he looked at the empty grave clothes, he “saw and believed” (20:8).
The epilogue of this Gospel hints that he lived for a long time after the beginning of the Christian era, for an explanation of his long life would scarcely have been necessary otherwise. The epistles show that he rose to a position of influence in the church and that he became a powerful expositor of the love of God as revealed in Christ. His death probably took place at the close of the first century.
From these scattered items of John’s biography, woven into the general narrative of the life of Christ, on can see something of his personal spiritual experiences. Intense in nature, he gave to Christ an undivided loyalty which at times expressed itself crudely and rashly. As Christ tamed his ardour and purified it of unrestrained violence, John became the apostle of love whose devotion was not excelled by that of any other writer of the New Testament. The fire of his nature appears in the vigor of his language. John echoes the strictures of Jesus against unbelievers (8:44) when he calls them “children of the devil” (1John 3:10). The same man, however, said: “Beloved let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God.” (4:7). The two are not inconsistent to an intense nature. John is the example of a man who could have been a great sinner, out of whom Christ made a great witness. (pp. 186-189, New Testament Survey, Merrill C. Tenney, Eerdman’s Publ., 1974)
, but since you asked I have no problemm talking about it
