John did not write the 4th gospel

[evangelist6589]

Yes this is the argument that one of the false teachers that I am debating with is making. I have found plenty of internal evidence especially in the last chapter that John wrote it, and even some church fathers agreed that he wrote it. But this false teacher turns and gives me some views of these liberal bible scholars that say John did not write the 4th gospel. I lack a good exegetical commentary on John (have one by RC Sproul but he is more of a theologian) so I am turning to my textbook on NTI by DA Carson and Moo whom are fine Bible scholars. So Greek Tim and others what can I say? Thanks..

 

[Don]

Whether it was John, or a three-fingered monkey, they were merely the hand that put the words to paper; God is the author. The question isn't really who wrote the words, but who's the author and what's the message.

By turning the topic to whether John is the author, they're obscuring the real focus of the message.

 

[Deacon]

Some people react to an irritant by ignoring it, others by swatting it, still others may react my distracting it.

My guess is that this ‘false teacher’ is distracting you.

This teacher may be attempting to have you examine your basic beliefs and determine what is utterly fundamental about what you believe.

Perhaps this person desires that you come to an understanding that much what you hold dear, much of what you react against really isn’t that important, and that uncertainty about something, or differences, don't really destroy the fundamental beliefs of the faith.

Some scholars have urged that the authorship of this Gospel does not matter greatly. We do not have the information to determine the point, they say, and in any case it is of no great importance. It is not who wrote the words that counts, but what he wrote. There is something to this. It is certainly the case that the important thing is that we heed what is said, and, further, that this is more urgent than indulging in scholarly arguments about authorship. It is also true that the Gospel as it stands is anonymous. Even the most conservative among us need not feel bound to espouse any particular view of authorship. But the subject is not unimportant, for all that. If we can feel that there are good grounds for thinking of an eyewitness, and specifically of John the Apostle, as being behind this Gospel, our view of it will be one thing. But if we see it as written by a second-century Christian who had never set eyes on Jesus, it will be quite another. While complete certainty may be unattainable, the question is one that we may discuss to our profit.
Morris, L. (1995). New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Gospel according to John (p. 4). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Rob

 

[Rippon]

I am turning to my textbook on NTI by DA Carson and Moo whom are fine Bible scholars. So Greek Tim and others what can I say?

You are one stubborn guy. What you should NOT say is whom when clearly who is the proper word.

 

[Greektim]

Yes this is the argument that one of the false teachers that I am debating with is making. I have found plenty of internal evidence especially in the last chapter that John wrote it, and even some church fathers agreed that he wrote it. But this false teacher turns and gives me some views of these liberal bible scholars that say John did not write the 4th gospel. I lack a good exegetical commentary on John (have one by RC Sproul but he is more of a theologian) so I am turning to my textbook on NTI by DA Carson and Moo whom are fine Bible scholars. So Greek Tim and others what can I say? Thanks..

I agree with Don above. The gospel accounts are self-authenticating as are all Scripture. None of the 4 accounts have to be written by the names ascribed to it for it to be Scripture. We only know for certain what is written in the text. And the evangelists don't write their names down for us. So that is nothing to claim with certainty that John wrote the gospel according to John.

Now John's account does seem to indicate who the author is. But how we get to the conclusion that is John son of Zebedee brother of James is not as concrete as we may like. Regardless, I think the internal and external evidence points to John the Apostle fairly conclusively. Carson & Moo's fine textbook is a great treatment. I also like the NT intro put out by the SEBTS authors (yes I'm biased). That's The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown with Kostenberger and co. Both are excellent conservative approaches.

If you were going to buy a good commentary on John, Carson's in the Pillar series is probably the best. It is the only commentary that receives a perfect 100 on bestcommentaries.com (though that is probably biased too).