Early Christianity’s greatest adversary was not one from without, but it was one from within: Gnosticism. This began to arise in the late first century in Asia Minor. Gnosticism in its principle beliefs is just that: knowledge. Gnostics basically boil down to storytellers, rationalizing their concepts of “Godhead” and trying to reconcile how Christ was a divine person and that yet Scripture plainly taught one God. There were several compromises, one extreme was to reject the Jewish background of Jesus and forsake the Scriptures. But this extreme came only as Greek Christianity and Jewish Christianity became almost completely separated in the 2nd Century.

Before this, Gnostics still had to wrestle with Scripture and combine it with their concept of a universal logic called, of course, Logos. Chiefly, it developed amongst the Greek believers who, by the time of the 2nd Century, constituted the majority in Christianity. In this it was very Greek, since the Greek culture loved to debate and consider, rationalize and philosophize. Scripture became a base for allegory and metaphor, a secret rule book to greater knowledge. Greek Christianity could also steal influence from classic Greek myth of demigods, men being born of gods, and humans even becoming quasi-divine through great acts and magic.

But Gnosticism was also inspired and maintained by another glaring fact: certain things that had been taught and that had been deeply fundamental to early Christianity had not happened. . .at least as expected. In other words: the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ, had not happened in the first Christian generation. With hindsight this seems to be the motive behind the authoring of a number of pseudo-epigraphic books, most notably 2 Peter, in which the believer is exhorted to remain firm in the faith, bolstering the teetering believer that: “one thousand years is as a day with the Lord,” so that all the Scriptural inferences of the “last days” could be understood to apply to a greater period of time. In other words, that “last days” could apply then and even 1000 years beyond. Indeed, evangelicals use it to apply fulfilled prophecies to this time.

Early Christianity had been geared to think in terms of a great apocalypticism based on words attributed to Christ, and from Pauline inferences that the first Christian generation would see the Parousia. Based on certain passages in the 3 gospels that formed the cornerstone of Christian teaching (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Christ’s second coming was thought certain to coincide with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem or soon thereafter. Those who wish to dispute that Matthew and Mark were not written around 70 AD stand on very shallow ground, for if they were written afterward they would not contain passages that clearly seem to indicate the Parousia should happen around the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. Only Luke appears to have been written post-70 AD, containing tempering amendments for clarification. These three gospels— the Synoptics, as they are called— unquestionably reflected and then inspired the early Christian belief in a Parousia that was at hand. (See Parousia)

They were also the only gospels universally accepted by the end of the 1st Century. There were several other gospels in circulation, but most were thinly veiled forgeries written by heretical groups trying to expound their own teachings. The 3 gospels have stood the test of time as being both very Jewish and accurate in terms of the teachings of Jesus Christ, despite an early jumble about the sayings of the Parousia. The teachings clearly reflect the Torah and the Prophets, something that was beyond the Gnostic heresies of the 2nd century AD. This century was a century of Christian anti-Jewish sentiments, an aftereffect of the schism between Jews and Nazarenes in the 90s AD (Also by the fact the Nazarenes didn’t help in the defense of Jerusalem but got out per the warnings of Christ). The Jewish reformation group of Nazarenes were squarely cast out, and as the Jewish element dwindled and became more separate Christianity started to become its own distinct Greco-Roman Mediterranean religion, with little understanding of its Jewish roots.

Therefore one of the gospels that started to circulate in the early 2nd century was not more vigorously challenged as authentic. It became yet another contender that both helped and reflected the Hellenizing of Christianity. This one was claimed to be based on the eyewitness testimony of a disciple who was referred to as the “beloved disciple.” It was clearly written from the hand of someone who had known the “eye-witness.” As such, it was unique amongst the latter apocryphal gospels, all of which were invariably purporting to have been written firsthand by an apostle (like Thomas or Philip, etc.) This gospel, later called the Gospel of John, became a cornerstone of Christian canon, doctrine and illustration.

However, aside from its use in Gnostic circles, it was largely obscure until the later part of the 2nd century, although one scrap of papyrus containing 2 verses is in the Rylands Collection and it is dated to around 125 AD. There is no question that early-on the name of John was associated with the gospel. Today, however, it can no longer be determined if this was a frank admission that an important Presbyter in Christendom also named John (the Presbyter of Ephesus) had written it, or if it was thought that John the Apostle wrote it. There is reasonable confusion. The book originated from Ephesus or close by at Heirapolis. The ancients knew that there existed a John who was the apostolic presbyter at Ephesus. He was frequently mentioned by Papias, the Bishop of nearby Hierapolis, whose 5 books Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord survived extant for centuries and were quoted by many churchmen. Papias had been this presbyter’s ardent disciple, and he was the source for much of what Papias passed on as authentic sayings from the early period.

But the confusion arose as to just who this John was when Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, first asserted (in 180 AD) that Papias was the student of John the Apostle and that he mentions him as such in his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. After this the notion started to gain momentum that the gospel originated with John the Apostle. This also added weight to the rumor that John the Apostle had written another contested book originating at Ephesus, called the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. Papias was known to heavily expound upon the illusions of The Apocalypse in volumes of his five volume work Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. Therefore since the gospel had originated at Ephesus, it seemed that John, Papias, the gospel and The Apocalypse were linked. Papias’ 5th book apparently confirmed this. In later centuries reference was made to it, where Papias said he had been John’s scribe on the gospel.

Despite Irenaeus’ assertions that Papias and Ephesus were linked with John the Apostle, there were still objections to the gospel because of its Gnostic overtones. A few years after Irenaeus, the Roman Presbyter Gaius denounced it as having been written by a Gnostic heretic named Cerinthus. And, in fact, certain Gnostic elements are noteworthy in the gospel, such as a metaphysical rationalizing to explain why the Resurrection and Parousia had not happened as a physical event. In the Gospel of John, the resurrection is indeed given just such a spin. Christ supposedly said: “I am the Resurrection and the life,” making the concept of a one-time vast resurrection of the dead into something far more metaphysical or allegorical. That the gospel was written late in the 90s AD or early 2nd century is shown by the fact that the prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, now a past event, are noteworthy for their absence, and apocalypticism in general is expurgated. Christ is no longer a Jewish figure at all, but he is Greek, engaging and talkative, disputing, evasive, and mystical. There are no real concrete teachings, and indeed the Biblical prophecy that Christ would speak in parables has no real fulfillment in John because Christ does not really use parables in that gospel.

The objections to the gospel must have remained significant, for the Presbyter Hippolytus was forced to argue for its inclusion into the books used at Rome at the beginning of the 3rd Century. The gospel grew in importance until the Council of Carthage (397 AD), at which even St. Augustine was present, and they accepted St. Athanasius’ Easter Letter compilation of books. The list of books in dispute would no longer contain the Gospel of John. Christianity had gone so far from its Jewish roots into the Greek branches that the gospel’s overt Hellenistic view of Jesus and its Gnostic metaphysics were not recognized as something impossible for Jews to have written or even understood in the 1st Century. Christianity was a Greco-Roman concept now, and the Gospel of John communicated on that level. It is not surprising that this became the most popular gospel, except amongst the Nazarenes, who still read a Hebrew version similar in many respects to Matthew, known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Ebionites, a sectary of Jewish Gnostic believers who did not regard Christ as divine, also read an expurgated version of this gospel it seems, removing implications of divinity.

Even when such a pillar of education as Eusebius (260-339 AD) took on some of the claims of Christianity’s early period in his massive Ecclesiastical History he did not dispute that John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st Epistle of John. Yet he had no problems exposing the presbyter John as the mentor to Papias, and that he was not the apostle. In his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord, Papias distinctly mentioned both John the Apostle and John the Elder separately in terms that left no doubt that he had only heard the presbyter’s teachings, not the apostle’s. (See Canon of the New Testament and Irrelevant Revelation) Eusebius says of Papias’ comments: “Moreover, by these remarks he confirms the truth of the story told by those who have said that there were two men in Asia [Turkey] who had the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even today is said to be John’s.” Although Eusebius deferred to the legend that John the Apostle was also at Ephesus, it was clear to him that the Elder wrote the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, and also the Apocalypse. But, ironically, the tradition remained intact from that point forward that there were two Johns at Ephesus: John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st epistle; and John the Elder wrote the two other epistles, where he identifies himself as the Elder, plus the disputed Apocalypse.

This way the church could maintain the gospel and 1st John, both of which were regarded very highly, while at the same time explain why the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John are clearly introduced from an “Elder;” and at the same time, moreover, try and mediate the strange influences of the Apocalypse. Eusebius: “It is important to notice this, for it is probably the second, unless one prefers the first, who saw the Revelation that circulates under the name of John.” Eusebius’ casual regard for the independent prudence of the believer to determine who wrote Revelation (The Apocalypse) shows the extent of the book’s non-canonicity at the time. Indeed, in his own compilation he listed all the gospels, 1st John and 1st Peter in the homologomena, the accepted and undisputed books; and the disputed books he placed in the antilogomena. However, within the antilogomena Eusebius had two subsections: disputed and spurious. He placed the Apocalypse in the lowest section: spurious. Eusebius was not being dynamic in this area. He was, safe to say, reflecting the general low regard for both the epistles and Apocalypse.

The Medieval approach to the canon would remain the same: a clear differentiation between John the Apostle and John the Elder. Luther would also abide by this, seeing the Gospel of John as the best of the gospels. He said that John’s gospel, 1st John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter were all the good Christian needed to teach him everything about Christ and the gospel. Jean Calvin would also acknowledge that the gospel and the 1st epistle were written by John the Apostle and that the 2nd and 3rd epistles were written by the Presbyter (elder) of Ephesus, and were of less value.

Of all the disputes that the Reformation raised against the Canon of the New Testament, based on the decided individuality with which each Reformer approached it, the Gospel of John was never attacked or questioned. Yet today is it the most attacked and questioned book in the whole New Testament canon. A greater understanding of the differences between Jewish and Greek culture of the 1st Century has only helped to undermine the notion that an unlearned Galilean Jew could have written it. Plus there is a better ability to access the early records and writings of the church, wherein is contained accurate preservation of history by early churchmen on the origin of books. Moreover, the more free atmosphere to subject the NT books to the same searching criticism which existed in the early church has revealed basic problems with logical progression in the gospel. Altogether they clearly reveal problems with the gospel, severe problems which should have been obvious to any believer having the synoptic gospels at hand for comparison.

This is a great advantage to Jews who are struggling to believe Jesus is the Messiah; and this is not a new problem. Since the beginning of Christianity, believing Jews (Nazarenes) rejected the gospel. For hundreds of years the Nazarenes refused to even consider it, reading only their Aramaic gospel. John is a Greek gospel, with a Greek Christ, and it does not reflect the long awaited prophecies of a great Messiah. Instead his first act is to do some cheap Greek magic and turn water into wine.

One cannot whitewash some of the problems by deferring to some of the early churchmen who explained the gospel as a “pneumatic” gospel— a spiritual gospel. If looked at in light of being a pneumatic gospel, in other words a spiritual distillation of all that Christ’s coming and ministry means, the Gospel of John is invaluable. But if proffered as an inerrant account of Jesus’ actual words and ministry there are severe insurmountable problems. And some of what the gospel contains has lead to direct heresies.

One of the most obvious is the way in which John the Baptist is presented in the very beginning. Not only does he direct Peter and his brother Andrew to follow Christ (Christ did not spend 40 days in the wilderness in “John’s” gospel) by telling them that Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” he is also presented as outright knowing and proclaiming he is the “Son of God” to all those around. Amazingly, he then is portrayed as decamping to Aenon for, as John 3:23 reads: “And John was also baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came to John, and said unto him Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; the the wrath of God abideth on him.”

Nice dissertation; quite pneumatic, to put it politely— quite voluble to be accurate. But, of course, it is impossible to have ever been said. For one thing, the Jews would have immediately responded: “Then why are you here and not following him?”

John would have dropped his jaw at such a logical reply. If we are to believe the Gospel of John, then John proclaimed Jesus the Son of God and then casually decamps to Aenon to baptize and preach while Christ is baptizing and preaching elsewhere. What would John preach? “He who just passed me up is mightier than I”—? How about: “The Son of God is over by Jordan, but I’m not going to follow him and neither are you.”

The other, true gospels are clear that John was arrested right after Christ was baptized, while he was in the desert for 40 days, and his preaching therewith stopped. Matthew 11: “Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?”

After Jesus raised the widow of Nain’s son from the dead (Luke 7): “And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. And this rumor of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about. And the disciples of John shewed him all these things. And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or do we look for another? When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.”

John obviously didn’t know who Jesus was. This above is the Messiah that all we of Israel have sought. Not the one of the “Gospel of John” turning water into wine at weddings. The contradiction is so obvious, how could anyone not see it? Well, apparently, the Nazarenes did, and wouldn’t have much to do with it. It is entirely written for Greeks.

Also, in the other gospels there is the story of Jesus asking his disciples “Who do men say that I am?” One of the responses is “John the Baptist” come back to life— an impossibility if both engaged in their ministries at the same time. None could ever think Jesus a reincarnated John unless John was dead or imprisoned before Jesus’ preaching began.

Even without employing the modern knowledge of Greek philosophy, there are things in the Gospel of John which clearly stand out as not being possible for Galilean Jews. For one, the dialogue of John the Baptist is identical to Jesus’ dialogue, indicating one person wrote the narrative with his own engaging, voluble Greek style and philosophy; and not that these are accurate sayings.

The assertion that John’s ministry could be continuing at the same time as Christ’s, and that John could be doing so while willfully (in effect) refusing to follow Christ, has allowed the Baptists to attach unusual veneration to their movement and claim that it goes straight back to John the Baptist, although they do not turn the hearts of the sons to the fathers and vice versa, no, nor anything of John’s message; they merely preach a strange ritual purity of baptizing “correctly” believing it means immersion. A medieval group even arose claiming to be his followers and that he was greater than Jesus. One modern Baptist preacher even made a point of asserting that there was an unbroken line of Baptist preachers back to John. He didn’t know how they had the scriptures during the medieval times, but he knew they had them somehow. The heresies that the Gospel of John have inadvertently spawned have been far reaching, inasmuch that by effect John the Baptist’s message is implied to be concurrent with Christ, thus demeaning the significance of Christ.

The beginning in the Gospel of John is what perhaps made Gaius attack it for being written by the Gnostic Cerinthus, who was a false teacher in Asia Minor at Ephesus in the late part of the 1st Century. John’s Gospel was known to have originated from those parts and to have been first used in Gnostic circles. Hippolytus himself quotes Gnostic writings using the gospel. Although Irenaeus is the first to attach John the Apostle to it, it does in fact seem as if John the Elder was the author, and that it was written to counter Cerinthus’ Gnostic teachings. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes that John’s purpose at Ephesus was: “. . .by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that ‘knowledge’ [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Logos; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another.”

The introduction of the gospel does seem to speak of 4 different entities of a Godhead. But, though the attempt is made to unite them, ambiguities remain whether this was overtly meant. Today, modern Christians, insulated from Gnosticism’s ideas, especially Cerinthian, read it quite innocently as uniting mystically and metaphorically the Godhead. However, if understanding Cerinthian concepts too many questions remain as to whether the introduction is indeed uniting the Logos, Jesus, God , and the Father, or whether some remain separate entities a la Cerinthian concepts.

Today, many believe that the Gospel of John has in fact undergone massive changes from its original writings; that originally it was a false Gnostic gospel written by Cerinthus, but that John adapted it to Christian perspectives. Can this be true? that the gospel in its main form is Cerinthus’ Gnostic gospel?

Irenaeus had one major purpose in his Against Heresies— to attack Cerinthus and all the heresy that he started from Ephesus. Irenaeus wrote that Cerinthus was “educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him. . .Moreover, after baptism, Christ descended upon him [Jesus] in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.”

This great Power is definitely Greek philosophy, spoken of by Protagorus and Heraclitus (6th century BC). This power was the reason behind all things. In Greek it was called the Logos— the very concept that opens the Gospel of John, and one that is now lamely attributed to meaning Word as a metaphor of Christ. Logos in Greek never meant word in this context. It is the word from which even English derives the word for “logic”— the reason; the meaning. (I heard one preacher say that Rema means written word in Greek and logos is oral word. Both statements are incredibly false). Logos is essentially “The Force.”

Heraclitus writes of the Logos: “Men have no comprehension of the Logos, as I've described it, just as much after they hear about it as they did before they heard about it. Even though all things occur according to the Logos, men seem to have no experience whatsoever, even when they experience the words and deeds which I use to explain physics, of how the Logos applies to each thing, and what it is. The rest of mankind are just as unconscious of what they do while awake as they are of what they do while they sleep.”

Heraclitus: “One must follow what is common; but, even though the Logos is common, most people live as though they possessed their own private wisdom.” Thus the Logos is “The Force” that operates all things, the source from which words and expression of knowledge comes from, a fount for all to tap into.

The reason why the Gospel of John was finally passed on as an accurate gospel is perhaps because Christianity was so highly Greek and Gnostic, its allusions were not so radical as they would have appeared to Jews in the 1st century. Hippolytus argued successfully for it at Rome. But Hippolytus’ own writings reveal he was far too Gnostic. In his Refutations he tries to describe God “God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, fullness and hunger; he changes the way fire does when mixed with spices and is named according to each spice.” The opposites convey the total fullness of God. The way in which a fire is changed to smell like the spice mixed with it are both direct from Heraclitus and his concepts of the supreme Logos. It remains unchanging, but our perception of it does change. The power of the Logos remains unchanging, underlying the universe, but our perception of it does alter— a terrible undermining point for Hippolytus’ credibility. He was so Gnostic that his regard for the Gospel of John as not being Gnostic is ruined since he himself was too far gone to be a credible judge.

It is clear from the beginning of the Gospel of John that Cerinthus’ particular Gnosticism is detectable, whether redacted or not by John the Elder. Actually, before quoting, it is plain to see that being ignorant of Gnosticism has buffered the true Christian from seeing that the author of the introduction does divide between God, Logos, Jesus Christ and the Father, because the basic Christian has read them as all the same. But when one realizes Cerinthus’ philosophy, as set forward by Irenaeus, one can see plainly that Cerinthian philosophy is dominant, though slightly Christianized. Read it again:

“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. [16] And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. [17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
 

An interesting arrangement. The Logos is the creative reason and power behind God, intimately a part of him, and it was in the world before it takes on bodily form as Jesus, begotten not of God but of the Father. Again, an interesting derivation: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” The Father and God appear separate entities.

Yet is is also clear that the Logos is not separated from God, as in Cerinthus’ philosophy. It is made clear that it is God, though it is his wisdom, that part of his reason that took on flesh. This is an interesting point since Gnosticism, as espoused by Cerinthus, denied this. The Elder, in his epistle to the “elect lady” (2nd John), his sister-in-law (?), makes the point in verse 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” Clearly, he is speaking about Cerinthus and his followers. But it is interesting wording. “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” and not “God came in the flesh.” Cerinthus’ philosophies obvious deeply affected Ephesus, proposing a difference between Jesus and Christ the Messiah, just as Irenaeus claims Cerinthus believed. More correctly, John should have said “God came in the flesh.” But he said “Jesus Christ came in the flesh” which is actually redundant. Of course, Jesus Christ was flesh, but his spirit is the spirit of God. Confessing that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is like confessing that the temple was made of marble and stone. Within that fleshy tabernacle God’s own spirit dwelt, in that fleshy tabernacle he built for himself. God came in the flesh, as he said he would. (See Song of Moses)

There are so many contradictions in the Gospel of John that one cannot assert the most intelligent hand was behind its redaction or its original authorship— and that must be considered here. We know that John the Elder of Ephesus only had the Gospel of Mark. This we can be certain of from Papias, for Papias in relating more teachings from the “Elder” stated the Elder’s recollection of how Mark wrote the gospel from memories of hearing Peter’s preaching. This is further supported by the fact that out of the 3 synoptic gospels only Mark’s is sans the story of John’s disciples coming to Jesus to inquire who he is. Had the Elder that information, he surely would not have let stand the rest of Chapter 1 where John the Baptist is portrayed as proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. John’s presentation of John Baptist’s preaching is, however, fortuitous for the Elder since it allows him to unite both God and the Father by John’s proclamation that Jesus is the “Son of God.”

Nevertheless, assuming that the redactor only had the Gospel of Mark is no excuse for many of the inaccurate statements that follow. Mark clearly shows what a momentous statement it was when Peter said of Jesus: “Thou art the Christ.” In John’s gospel everybody recognizes Jesus as the Messiah at a drop of a hat, from John the Baptist, to the fornicating woman at the well, to Nathaniel under the tree, thereby axing the significance of Peter’s statement in the other 3 gospels.

An entire false picture of Christ’s words and ministry continues to unfold throughout John’s Gospel. The “beloved disciple,” the man who is touted as the source behind the book, is clearly fictional; that is to say, there probably was such a claimant, but he was a false claimant. Asia Minor’s churches were rife with such people, and all seemed to home in on Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who at the time made it clear in his own volumes Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord that he sought living and abiding voices rather than what was in books. “For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.”

Not only did Papias repeat unusual stories from dubious mountebanks traveling through Asia, it seems that John the Elder did as well. . .unless John the Elder was claiming to have been the “beloved disciple” and a direct eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry. Though Papias clearly divided between John the Apostle and John the Elder (see Canon of the New Testament and Irrelevant Revelation), he states plainly that the Elder John was a disciple, and so too was Aristion. Papias stated that he had listened to “whatever Aristion and the Elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.” In other words, he is implying that both had heard Christ speak. From the epistles of John, it does seem apparent that John the Elder was a Hellenized Jew of sorts. However, if he is the beloved disciple, or the claimant to be just such a “beloved disciple,” it appears the Elder of Ephesus was “honesty-challenged.” There is no way that the source behind the gospel was a direct eyewitness of anything.

Like all pretenders, there’s no point in pretending unless it is pretending to be the best. The beloved disciple clearly places himself at every key moment in Jesus’ life, even contradicting the synoptics to do so. Instead of the whole group of apostles asking “Is it I?” when they hear there is a betrayer, it is the beloved disciple (who happens to be on Jesus’ bosom; for this he was later referred to as the “Bosom Friend,” from which the expression comes). Instead of Peter running alone to the tomb, it is the beloved disciple and Peter. Although Jesus’ apostles fled and abandoned him, the beloved disciple is at the cross and Jesus, amidst the agony of crucifixion, imparts an extra line giving his mother Mary to him. Had that been written during the time that all the apostles were still alive, especially Jesus’ own earthly brothers, James and Judah, they would have been fried from such a claim. As the sons of Mary they would have taken care of their mother.

Paul also would have stopped this. In 1 Corinthians he almost renders what is tantamount to the first Christian Creed. The author of the gospel of John clearly had not read 1 Corinthians 15:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

There was no “beloved disciple.” As in the Synoptics, Paul confirms that Peter went alone to the tomb. He was next seen by the 12, then by many of the disciples, then by all of the “apostles.” It should be noted for clarification that “apostle” meant “a person sent.” There were actually more than 12 “apostles” in this context, for certain even James the Just was considered an apostle. Later, even Barnabus was considered one. Paul is reflecting the distinction made between the actual 12 and the many of equal character who had followed since the beginning.

Dear Papias, however, was the sucker for many stories, and one wonders if he didn’t go over the gospel and add many accounts to the philosophies that John the Elder had written in Jesus’ name to combat Cerinthus. Indeed, we may wonder if John was not dictating to him to make the corrections. Too much in the gospel reeks of Papias’ particular gullibility. In one patristic account, it states that Papias even claimed in his 5th book to be the scribe for the gospel. (See Irrelevant Revelation.) This seems likely to be a true statement. And this helps us to understand how the gospel is slightly Gnostic and at the same time full of contradictory stories.

Eusebius recorded very skeptically the kind of stuff that Papias like to repeat, and also what he felt his level of intelligence was. Eusebius: “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them, but he says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder. In any event he frequently mentions them by name and includes their traditions in his writings as well. Let these statements of ours not be wasted on the reader.
It is worthwhile to add to the statements of Papias given above other sayings of his, in which he records some other remarkable things as well, which came down to him, as it were, from tradition. That Philip the Apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip’s daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant. The Book of Acts records that after the ascension of the Savior the holy apostles put forward this Justus with Matthias and prayed for the choice by lot to fill out their number in place of the traitor Judas; the passage runs as follows: ‘And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said. . .’ The same writer has recorded other accounts as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the Lord and teachings of his and some other statements of a more mythical character. Among other things he says that there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. These ideas, I suppose, he got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not realizing that the things recorded in figurative language were spoken by them mystically. For he certainly appears to be a man of very little intelligence, as one may say judging from his own words.”

Eusebius’ opinions were clear: Papias was a storyteller; and, moreover, his sources were not the apostles but John the Elder, Aristion, and whoever else laid claim to being an eyewitness. Eusebius is definitely a key force that ruined Papias’ reputation with later generations of Christians; but most of this was aimed at Papias’ apparently undeniable association with the Apocalypse and John the Elder. (See Irrelevant Revelation). Eusebius never inferred there was a link between the Elder, Papias and the Gospel of John. If he suspected it, it would have been too controversial to bring up. He was willing to promulgate the legend that two John’s lived at Ephesus. It is also possible that Eusebius did not have Papias’ 5th book, wherein it might have been contained Papias’ own statement that he was the scribe for the gospel, and naturally this would have meant the author was the presbyter John.

As to that, there is no question there was a redactor or scribe/editor in the Gospel of John. Almost all admit that the very end of the gospel there is the clear notation of an editor: John 21: [24] “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. [25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

It does indeed sound like Papias, the man who liked to collect stories of Jesus and expound on them in his books. As he himself said in his introduction. “And if by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders— what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.” As Eusebius cautioned: “Let these statements of ours not be wasted on the reader.” The Gospel of John shows it was not written by an eyewitness. Papias’ own introduction above proves he had never heard the apostle. The gospel was known to have been written around Ephesus or nearby Hierapolis; it corrects Gnostic doctrine while at the same time promulgating quasi-Gnostic doctrines in reaction to Cerinthian claims— the classic fight fire with fire.

For instance, the end of the gospel John 21: 20 “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

Herein is the lack of a Parousia found. When one understands the Gnostics, the intent of the above is obvious: to correct the idea that there will be a tangible Parousia. The church at the time was already compromising to explain the non-event. Here the Parousia becomes a metaphysical one— Christ coming at one’s death.

Reality is, he shall come again, and there shall be the Resurrection of the dead. Paul’s Corinthian comments reveals the Jewish obsession with the Resurrection. Jews did not have the Greek stoic contempt for the flesh. Nor did they think it great to be a ghost or spirit. Paul and every other Jew deeply sought a world in which they would live in their bodies forever. This Resurrection shall come, and I can’t picture any Jew of the period trying to get metaphysical about it. Jesus himself called is Regeneration. God made nothing in vain. It shall be regenerated.

The name of John was associated with it in some way early on by Irenaeus, believing that Papias was a disciple of John the Apostle. But the Elder John appears to be the source, that and perhaps some traveling disciple claiming to have been a direct eyewitness.

Unlike other arenas where the challenging of Biblical books is being used to undermine Christianity, the reason here is to bolster faith and encourage the reformation which must come. The New Testament was compiled contrary to the Torah, the commands of God, in which it is required that a prophet who spoke in the name of God and it came to pass, that it was of the LORD. Moreover, that he spoke according to the Law and Testimony. That was not done here obviously. Truth, which is always of God, was not inquired of. Expedience, the likeable and laudable, the preferable, all these counseled the setting of the canon, none of which are good grounds to raise a book to the level of the words of God.

But the criticisms that come to John’s gospel could only be modern criticisms. The use of the gospel as a source of inspiration before the Reformation is limitless. It was a powerful force keeping the Greek from the Gnostics and explaining to him the totality of God by not destroying Greek philosophy outright but by conquering it. The purest motivation was behind it. There is no way that the Elder was not motivated by the purest of reasons, nor should there be doubt he is in paradise. But it is in the post-Reformation mentality of Christian Phariseeism that dangers arise when the book is picked over to find rules and doctrines. This book helped evangelized a world hooked of Greek philosophies. It helped destroy a pantheism and “force” that has not been reborn until modern times. If one had to communicate Christ’s coming to the culture this today of a “force” or universal essence, one would have to write something similar to the introduction of John. But Christian Phariseeism is outside the rules and requirements of Scripture when they insist this is the word for word of God. They ignore the scriptures, misuse the New Testament, and in the end their faith is directed at the wrong thing.

Unlike the modern slant that has been given to the “Guidance of the Spirit” gezeirah, we should perhaps consider that God’s holy spirit has indeed been guiding mankind to challenge some of the NT compilations and illusions, challenge it in ways that will once again draw his people back. The reestablishing of Scripture draws us to the image he wanted of himself on Earth, that of “God with us,” the great desire we had once sought— Not the magician turning water into wine or that quasi-Gnostic anti-Gnostics pushed off in the 2nd century. The Jesus of the Gospel of John is a Greek demigod or hero, not the one of the Synoptics or the Scriptures. The image of the demigod repels Jews rightfully, but the image in Scripture does not: that God would come among us. . . that he will literally raise the dead.

God saw mankind experience death, and he did not care for it. He came and experienced that while in a body: pain, humiliation and death, that he might show mankind he is love and life. Though we died first, he raised from the dead his tabernacle first so that all who believed could live. No one can be ignorant of the nature of God anymore. No one can say that Jesus is not Emmanuel. No one can say laws and rituals purify the heart before God, nor the blood of bulls and goats purge sin. The purpose of life was fulfilled at the Resurrection: we now know God’s own level of love for mankind. That is the purpose of life. (See Sacrifices)