Love is a many splintered thing

We all come from different backgrounds. I was raised in an environment that the Books of the Bible were written by the traditionally claimed authors. Moses wrote the Torah, Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, Paul’s companion wrote Luke/Acts, and John the Disciple wrote the Gospel, three short letters and Revelation.

The only questionable authorship was Hebrews, which gave us lively debate, and an opportunity to snicker at the “old school” which held to Paul being the writer.

It was not until I began discussing with skeptics that I realized all of the questions involved in establishing who the authors were on the various books. I know that many who pass through here have had classes, and read countless books on the subject, and can (justifiably) scoff at my naiveté. I have since studied vociferously on the subject.

Yet my discussing with Christians, here and elsewhere, has reminded me that there are many, many Christians who still do hold to the traditional authorship, and have never considered the possibility that John the Disciple did not write the Gospel of John.

Part of my journey was discovering that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the events, and therefore subject to the same troubling problems of error being introduced into their accounts.

Was the author of the Gospel of John an eyewitness to Jesus’ life?

Much of this is may be old-hat, certainly to the contributors of this blog. Yet, for me, a Christian of more than three decades, it was something new that I had never properly considered. It is possible I was the last person in the world to ever be introduced to this, but it seems unlikely. If this has been well-studied by you, feel free to skip elsewhere. Believe it or not, for many of us, this is (was) a new concept.

A brief background. The Gospels can be divided into the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) and what has been termed as the Gospel from the Johannine school of thought (the entire Johannine is the Gospel and the three letters. For purposes of this blog entry, I will ignore Revelation entirely.)

“Synoptic” means “from the same point of view” and the reason the three Gospels are lumped together and given this title, is that they give a similar point of view. In fact, they are so similarly written, most Biblical scholars recognize an element of sharing between the accounts which gives rise to what has been termed “the Synoptic Problem” as in determining who was sharing from whom.

The most common (although not universal) solution is that Mark was written first, and then Matthew and Luke utilized Mark in composing their own Gospels. There is other material shared by Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) which has resulted in the suggestion of another written document which was also used by Matthew and Luke, termed “Q.” Here is a useful article on the Synoptic problem.

The events recorded in the Synoptics are not shared by John. The Synoptics imply one year of ministry, John implies three. The cleansing of the temple occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry in the Synpotics, at the beginning in John. John has numerous unique sayings, a lack of parables, and refers to Jesus doing signs, all of which are vastly different than what we see in the Synoptics.

Presuming the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke are an accurate portrayal of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry—what is the likelihood that the author of the Gospel of John witnessed the same events? There are far too many concerns to cover in just one blog entry, so let’s just look at the use of “love.”

According to Mark, John and James were Galilean fisherman brothers, that Jesus called as part of the Twelve inner-circle of disciples. Mark 1:19-20. Neither John nor James are explicitly named as disciples in the Gospel John, although there is reference to “the sons of Zebedee” in John 21:2. Caution should be noted, that Chapter 21 of John appears to be an additional chapter. Chronologically, it makes little sense, nor the fact that the Disciples, after having seen Jesus, would fail to recognize him. It reads as if it was a first appearance, not a third. Chapter 20 ends on what makes an appropriate final note.

This would mean there is no reference to John in the Gospel of John, let alone claim of authorship. Of course, the argument is made that the author was too humble to provide his own identity and conceals himself under the acronym of the “disciple who Jesus loved.” John 13:23. Unfortunately, using just the gospel, this is speculation. Further, 21:24 refers to this disciple in the third person, as if the person writing Chapter 21 is not this disciple, but the person who wrote the previous section(s) is. If Chapter 21 is part of the original Gospel, what parts did the disciple write, and what parts did “we” write?

What do we know about John? He, his brother James and Peter appeared to constitute an even smaller inner-circle of the Twelve. They were the only ones with Jesus at the healing of Jairus’ daughter. (Mark 5:37). They were with him in the Garden. (Mark 14:33) And, most famously, they were the only three with Jesus at the Transfiguration. (Mt. 17:2, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28)

Curiously, despite this intimacy with Jesus, after the ascension, both John and James drop off the map. We are told that James was killed by Herod (Acts 12:2), but nothing more is said of him. John also disappears, a mention is made of his missionary trip to Samaria, and no more. Acts 8:14. The primary leaders of the early Church, according to Acts, were not Disciples. Even Peter is relegated to a more minor role as compare to that of Paul and James, Jesus’ brother.

The brothers John and James were outspoken, and Jesus gave them the names “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17) Luke records an incident in which John feels snubbed by a village in Samaria. In a knee-jerk reaction, John asks Jesus to call down fire on the village. (Luke 9:52-54) Not surprisingly, the author of the Gospel of John fails to record this incident. But what IS surprising is what he fails to record next.

Soon after this, Jesus is questioned by a lawyer as to inheriting eternal life. The lawyer believes it is loving God, and loving one’s neighbor. Being a lawyer, he wants to qualify “neighbor” as to who is entitled to receive this loving. (Luke 10:25-29) Jesus launches into the famous story of the Good Samaritan. John, who had most recently been ready to wipe out a village of Samaritans, would have paid close attention to this tale, we would think.

Yet it goes unrecorded in the Gospel of John. Which is even more remarkable, considering the emphasis the author places on the concept of love.

The word “Love” is used more times in the Gospel of John, than in Matthew, Mark and Luke combined! To demonstrate how significant this doctrine is to the Johannine school, the word “love” is used more times in 1, 2 and 3 John, than in Matthew, Mark and Luke combined. If there was anything that would make a Johannine take notice, it would be the son of God saying “Love.”

Word count is not necessarily demonstrative of a person’s focus, depending on their audience, length of the book, etc. But I would defy anyone to read the letters of John and walk away with the thought, “Was he talking about love?” Or read the Gospel of John, and not notice the emphasis on Love.

Jesus talks of Father loving him. Jn. 10:17 Jesus repeatedly makes the connection between love and keeping commandments. Jn. 14:15 & 21 Jesus states compares the father’s love for the son and, if they keep his commandments, they will abide in his love, like he abides in Father’s love. Jn. 15:9-10

Jesus contrasts his love with how the world will hate them. Jn. 15:19

This author is keen on the idea of the Father loving the son, who loves his disciples, who must love each other. The word, “love” comes up, and he is paying attention. How does a person like that, who is intimately involved with Jesus, who (according to apologists) Jesus loved the most, NOT give the story of the Good Samaritan? It is perfectly adapt to what the Gospel and the letters are replete with. It is conspicuous by its absence.

In being questioned, Jesus is asked what the “greatest commandment is.” Jesus says that the greatest is to love God, and the second is to love one’s neighbor. There is no greater commandment than these. Mark 12:31. If John was there, with his emphasis, his ears would be burning up. He constantly ties keeping commandments with love, and this fits his motif perfectly. 1 John 3:23.

Yet John forgets to record this incident in his Gospel? John recounts again and again how the Jews confronted Jesus, in attempts to trick Him. John 5:18. Here we have a combination of both, and he doesn’t remember?

Perhaps he was not there that day—it was his turn to go into town and pick up bread. Would no one tell him of the wonderful confrontation, in which once again Jesus befuddled the Pharisees with their own sayings and gave out the Greatest Commandment? No one claims that Mark was there, either, but they claim that Peter thought it of enough import to share it with him. Luke wasn’t there, but it is told to him. Poor John, the one fellow that is salivating over this tidbit is the one that just happens to not hear of it.

It gets worse for John. Apparently he was not there when Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, tells of loving one’s enemy. (Matthew 5:38-48) I imagine that if the author of the Gospel of John was there, his pen would have been scribbling furiously at the wonderful statements about love indicated there. But alas, again he missed it.

And when Jesus repeats and expounds on this in the Sermon on the Plain, AGAIN, John is off fishing and AGAIN misses this. (Luke 6:29-35) Every time the Synoptics indicate that Jesus gave a statement on love, John has the dastardly bad luck of not being there. And no one tells him.

At what point does the Christian start to scratch their head and say, “It is a might bit odd that Matthew, Mark, and Luke record incidents of Jesus giving sayings on love, and John who is allegedly there, and concentrates on love, misses every one.”

John emphasizes how the Father loves the son. A miracle of the voice of God reiterating this from the sky would be hard to pass up. Even the other Disciples, who ALSO were not there, recorded God the Father proclaiming His love for Jesus at His baptism. Matthew records it. (Matt. 3:17) Mark records it. (Mark 1:11) Luke records it. (Luke 3:22) And the one disciple, the one that emphasizes the love the Father has for the son, misses it? The author records John the Baptist. He records John the Baptist seeing Jesus. He even records the Spirit coming down like a dove. (John 1:32) But he misses the voice saying those words he loves to hear?

O.K. perhaps he was buying bread on the day of the confrontation with the lawyer. Perhaps he was off doing other things, and with the rottenest of luck, missed both sermons. Perhaps he was not told everything about the Baptism.

But what about the Transfiguration?

Can’t skate out of this one, ‘cause the Synoptics make it a point to say he was there. (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28) Again the voice from heaven. Again a declaration of love from the father to the son. Again the author of the Gospel of John completely fails to write about it.

I know, I know. There were too many things to write down, and he had to pare out some. And I could even buy this, if it was a few non-important details. But this is the author, that within a few pages, has “For God so Loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…” No mention of the explicit statement at the transfiguration? No mention of the Greatest commandment being love? By sheer coincidence alone, every single event that Matthew, Mark and Luke felt was important regarding love (the very focus of the author) the author fails to include?

The author records Jesus as saying a new commandment was given to the Disciples that they love one another. John 13:35 Now, he had previously heard what the Greatest commandments were (Love God, Love your neighbor.) Is this “new” commandment even greater, less, or the same? If it is the same, it is hardly new, eh?

I am stumped as to how one can have Jesus giving a new commandment of “love one another” after the stories recorded in the Synoptics. Was the Good Samaritan NOT about loving one another? What was new about this one?

Look is it possible that the author of John was an eyewitness and simply ignored, and or did not know, or did not record these luscious bits? Sure. Anything is possible. But is that the best we can do? To claim that the author went against every indication of his emphasis, and did not utilize these morsels?

I propose that the Gospel of John was written by someone unfamiliar with the Synpotic stories who was not traveling with Jesus. In that paradigm we would expect the author to present conflicting stories and more importantly miss important stories that fit his motif that are in the Synoptics.

That is exactly what we have. Can anyone explain, better than “it is possible” how the author of John could have left out the sermons, parables and confrontations regarding love that he would have viewed, had he followed Jesus? Something better than “it is possible…”?