who is the book of john written by
Gospel of John Although the Gospel of John is anonymous,[1] Christian tradition historically has attributed it to John the Apostle, son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is so closely related in style and content to the three surviving Johannine epistles that commentators treat the four books,[2] along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not necessarily written by the same author.[Notes 1]
Gospel of John John is usually dated to AD 90â€“110.[17][Notes 6] It arose in a Jewish Christian community in the process of breaking from the Jewish synagogue.[18] Scholars believe that the text went through two to three redactions, or "editions", before reaching its current form.[19][20]
Gospel of John The Gospel According to John is the fourth of the canonical gospels.[1][Notes 1] The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[2] It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[3]
Gospel The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels belong to the ancient genre of bios, or biography.[44] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, and so they included both propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.[45] Mark, for example, is not biography in the modern sense but an apocalyptic history depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[46] As Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.[5] The gospel authors altered the traditions at their disposal (their sources) to serve their own ends â€” thus Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable[4] A second problem is that the gospels as we have them are not the originals, but have been edited and recopied over time, and evidently differ from them in thousands of ways.[47] In that long chain of transmission the texts have been corrupted, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."[48] Despite all this, scholars are confident that the gospels do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and that critical study can attempt to distinguish the ideas of Jesus from those of later authors and editors.[6]