|
The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.〔F. L. Cross, ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'', (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 45〕 The main debate centers on who authored the writings, and which of the writings, if any, can be ascribed to a common author. Ancient tradition attributes all the books to John the Apostle.〔Stephen L Harris, ''Understanding the Bible,'' (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355〕 In the 6th century, the Decretum Gelasianum argued that Second and Third John have a separate author known as "John, a priest" (see John the Presbyter).〔Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), though historians dispute the connection.〕 Higher criticism, representing most liberal Christian and secular scholars, rejects the view that John the Apostle authored any of these works. Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,〔"Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., ''Understanding the Bible'' (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355〕 although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris, and Martin Hengel〔Hengel, Martin. ''Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ'', |page=40 |ISBN 978-1-56338-300-7. Trinity Press International; 1st edition, 2000. p. 40〕 hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.〔Morris, Leon (1995) ''(The Gospel According to John )'' Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8028-2504-9, pp. 4–5, 24, 35–7. "Continental scholars have ... abandoned the idea that this gospel was written by the apostle John, whereas in Great Britain and America scholarship has been much more open to the idea." Abandonment is due to changing opinion rather "than to any new evidence." "Werner, Colson, and I have been joined, among others, by I. Howard Marshall and J.A.T. Robinson in seeing the evidence as pointing to John the son of Zebedee as the author of this Gospel." The view that John's history is substandard "is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic. ... It is difficult to ... regard John as having little concern for history. The fact is John is concerned with historical information. ... John apparently records this kind of information because he believes it to be accurate. ... He has some reliable information and has recorded it carefully. ... The evidence is that where he can be tested John proves to be remarkably accurate." *Bruce 1981 pp. 52–4, 58. "The evidence ... favor() the apostolicity of the gospel. ... John knew the other gospels and ... supplements them. ... The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John." John's style is different so Jesus' "abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting. ... He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity. ... It is the story of events that happened in history. ... John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context." *Dodd p. 444. "Revelation is distinctly, and nowhere more clearly than in the Fourth Gospel, a historical revelation. It follows that it is important for the evangelist that what he narrates happened." *Temple, William. "Readings in St. John's Gospel". MacMillan and Co, 1952. "The synoptists give us something more like the perfect photograph; St. John gives us the more perfect portrait". *Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked". *Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John.〕〔Dr. Craig Blomberg, cited in Lee Strobel ''The Case for Christ'', 1998, Chapter 2. *Marshall, Howard. "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary", ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804 *Robinson, J. A. T. "The Priority of John" P 122 *Cf. Marsh, "John seems to have believed that theology was not something which could be used to read a meaning into events but rather something that was to be discovered in them. His story is what it is because his theology is what it is; but his theology is what it is because the story happened so" (p 580–581).〕 There may have been a single author for the gospel and the three epistles.〔 Some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, although all four works probably originated from the same community.〔Ehrman, pp. 178–9.〕 The gospel and epistles traditionally and plausibly came from Ephesus, ''c.'' 90-110, although some scholars argue for an origin in Syria. In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos, ''c.'' 95 with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.〔 ==Early use of the Johannine works== The gospel was not widely quoted until late in the 2nd century.〔Craig Keener, ''A Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume 1'', (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 93.〕 Justin Martyr is probably the first ''Church Father'' to quote John's gospel.〔Craig Keener, ''A Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume 1'', (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 93 notes that, "Earliest Christian tradition seems to have exercised some ambivalence towards this Gospel, however; it is not recognized in the Roman fathers until the late second century." Keener also notes that "it is possible that he (Martyr ) cites instead an agraphon from pre-Johannine tradition or a subsequent tradition based on John."〕 Some scholars conclude that in antiquity John was probably considered less important than the synoptics.〔''C.H. Dodd, Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel'', (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), 13; J.W. Pryor, "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," ''Second Cent'' 9, no. 3 (1992): 153-169; Keener, ''The Gospel of John,'' 94 notes in one of the footnotes something quite interesting, "Although the analogy carries little weight, my first book cited Matthew over 150 times, Luke 13 times, 1 Peter 9 times, and John twice, though John was my dissertation area."〕 Walter Bauer suggests: Can it be a coincidence that immediately after Justin, the enemy of heretics who took aim at the Valentinians (''Dial.'' 35. 6), we note the appearance in Italy-Rome of two representatives of this latter school who especially treasure the Fourth Gospel – namely Ptolemy and Heracleon (Hillolytus ''Ref.'' 6. 35)? To be sure, Justin's disciple Tatian placed the Gospel of John on the same level as the synoptics, but he also broke with the church on account of profound differences in faith – poisoned, so Irenaeus thought, by the Valentinians and Marcion (AH 1. 28. 1 ()).〔Walter Bauer, ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'' (Philadelphia: 1971), 206〕 One reason for this 'orthodox ambivalence' was gnostic acceptance of the fourth gospel.〔Keener, ''The Gospel of John,'' 94; see also John Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in ''Anchor Bible Commentary'' David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 notes that, "In its defense against Gnosticism the Church embraced the Gospel of John and attempted to demonstrate that the gospel affirmed the 'Orthodox Christian faith.' The affiliation of the gospel with gnostic Christian beliefs led some, however, to reject it along with Revelation, as Irenaeus witnesses (''haer.'' 3.2.12〕 The early Gnostic use is referred to by Irenaeus and Origen in quoted commentary made on John by the Gnostics Ptolemy and Heracleon. In the quote below Irenaeus argues against the gnostic heresy from his book ''Against Heresies'': For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their () hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour (flesh ) who was formed by a special dispensation (of all the Æons ), and was of later date than the Word.〔(''Against Heresies'' 1.9.2., see )〕 Several church fathers of the 2nd century never quoted John, but the earliest extant written commentary on any book of the New Testament was that written on John by Heracleon, a disciple of the gnostic Valentinus.〔(Fragments of Heracleon's ''Commentary on John'' can be found here )〕 The following table shows the number of times various church fathers cited John compared to the synoptic gospels.〔Taken from Robert. M Grant, "The Fourth Gospel and the Church," ''The Harvard Theological Review'' 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 95-116〕 John was considered the last to be written. Most scholars today give it a date between 90 and 100,〔 though a minority suggest an even later date.〔Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 suggests that, "John's very divergence from the synoptics had already led to is relatively slower reception in the broader church until it could be explained in relation to them."〕 The Fourth Gospel may have been later also because it was written to a smaller group within the Johannine community, and was not circulated widely until a later date.〔Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 notes also that "our early second-century papyrus fragment P52, discovered in Egypt, probably limits the value of this second proposal ... However much the Fourth Gospel may have been directed toward a specific historical situation, it was only a matter of time before it began to circulate beyond its originally intended readership."〕 However, claims for authorship much later than 100 have been called into question due to Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a fragment of the gospel found in Egypt that was probably written around 125〔Robert M. Grant, ''The Fourth Gospel and the Church'', The Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 94 Nevertheless, most biblical scholars continue to favour the earlier dating, though the possibility of a later date is not entirely discounted; John Rylands Library continues to maintain Roberts's assessment of the date of 52, that it "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D."〕〔(John Rylands Library )〕〔The date is given as c. 125 in standard reference works〕 as well as by the recent work of Charles Hill.〔Hill, Charles E., ''(The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church )'' Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-929144-1〕 Hill gives evidence that the Gospel of John was complete and in use between 90 and 130, and of the possible use of uniquely Johannine gospel material in several works which date from this period. These works and authors include Ignatius of Antioch (''c.'' 107); Polycarp (''c.'' 107); Papias' elders (''c.'' 110-120); of Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (''c.'' 120-132). Hill holds that many early historical figures did indeed reference the Gospel of John.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Authorship of the Johannine works」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|