John: 1
Commentators have often referred to the Gospel of John as the “Spiritual Gospel” b/c it clearly contains a lot more seasoned reflection on the events of Jesus life and death than do the Synoptic Gospels.
In terms of the social-historical background of John, let me say a few things. The obvious reflection that runs throughout John’s Gospel is 1 of the reasons why many commentators consider it the last of the canonical Gospels written, between AD 90 and 95. Once, some very critical scholars thought it was actually written in the 2nd century, until the discovery of the Rylands Papyrus. This papyrus, which contained a copy of part of John’s Gospel, was dated to about AD 120—meaning, the original Gospel had to have been written much earlier than that. Hence, the 2nd century date was canned!
In terms of authorship, it’s clear that it was written by the “Beloved Disciple,” or the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2; 21:24)—but who exactly was the “Beloved Disciple”? The traditional view holds that this is none other than the Apostle John. More modern scholars now believe that two authors were directly involved: the 1st was the “Beloved Disciple,” who was an eyewitness (Note: of all the Gospels, only John’s makes the claim of being an eyewitness; see John 19:35; 21:24a); the 2nd author was a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, and whom modern scholars refer to as the “Evangelist.” The Evangelist distinguishes himself from the Beloved Disciple: e.g., he uses the 3rd person (John 19:35), he uses “his” vs. “we” (John 21:24), and he refers to his “mentor” using very laudatory language, viz., referring to him as the “Beloved” disciple.
The Beloved Disciple was probably a Palestinian Jewish follower of Christ. Some reasons for this include: his extensive and often subtle use of Jewish scripture, his familiarity with Palestinian topography, and his familiarity with Jewish feasts; also, much of John’s Gospel has parallels in the Qumran writings (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls). His original audience was probably Jewish Christ-believers residing in Ephesus. Some reason for this include: there is support for this position in some of the earliest witnesses (2nd century commentators); the Gnostic parallels of John are most visible in Ephesus; and disciples of John the Baptist—who were Palestinian Jews—continued to reside in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:1-3).
In terms of sources, John’s would be quite different than the Synoptic Gospels. Remember: Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q, along with their own material. Well, John gives little evidence of using Mark or Q (or Matthew or Luke). Most scholars would hold that John used sources b/c, on the 1 hand, clearly the other 3 Gospel writers did; and on the other hand, there is evidence within John for his use of sources: the introduction of John 1:1-18 has a very pronounced stylistic difference from the rest of the Gospel; there are also literary seams, as suggested by some “inconsistencies” in the narrative (e.g., over “sign” [2:11a; 2:23; 4:54], “Judea” [2:23a, but 3:22], and “seaside” [5:1, but 6:1]). Typically, scholars maintain that John used a “signs source” (which was used to convince Jews that Jesus is the messiah [e.g., 2:23; 4:48; 10:38; 14:11b; 20:30-31]), a “discourse source” (used for Jesus’ lengthy speeches [e.g., the so-called Upper Room Discourse stretching from chap. 13 to chap. 17]), a “passion source” (for Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection—although this material is quite similar to Mark’s passion narrative), as well as other sources, e.g., the poetic introduction to the Gospel (1:1-18).
OK, enough already about sources! Before I get into John, though, I want to compare his Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels, in terms of similarities and dissimilarities. But I’ll save that for next time . . .