1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

Who Actually Wrote John And Hebrews

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Stan, Oct 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I have studied this for some time and would like to see what people have to say about this subject.
    From my studies, I've learned that Luke also wrote Hebrews and Lazarus wrote John.
    Let's here what you have to say, HAVING actually studied this matter.

  2. IT seems that we have had this discussion before, but I will speak to it none the less. With the lack of any competitors, the fact that common men wrote these words instead of some prestigious person with other agendas, and the fact that people of that time accepted these words, there is no doubt that Matthew, Luke, and John Mark, and John the Apostle wrote the words of their gospel accounts and that they are the true first or second hand look in to the life of Jesus Christ.

    The actual idea of Lazarus writing John comes from a man wrote a book a few years ago and asked that question and presented some "opinions" of his own thinking in order to sell tthat book. IF, IF.....Lazarus did write the gospel of John then he would also had to have writeen 1,2,3 John as the flow of the writing is the same. There in lies the problem because John claims the authorship of all three epistles.

    As for Hebrews, the author is a moot question. IF you have done extensive reading in the New Test. anyone will agree that there is NO unanimity of thought and no agreement as to who is the author. When in school many years ago, I wrote a thesis/ or tried to on the authorship of Hebrews. I was sure it was Paul but the more I worked on it the more I was sure that I was not to know and that still stands today.

    In spite of the fact that Paul cannot be said dogmatically to be the author, there is a lot of evidence that Paul is the writer of Hebrews. Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s, that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians—both and scholars and the laity—still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.

    First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary.

    The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 11:23/Gal 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Heb. 2:3).

    If Paul didn't write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language which the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clemet of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.
  3. Sorry, I am on a few forum sites so I sometimes lose track. I posted this basically as a response to another member on another thread on this site. Your assertion here about the gospels is not accurate. There are many questions about all BUT Luke's gospel, as to the actual author.

    It doesn't come from just one man, there are many who support this assessment. The Gospel of John and the Epistles of John do NOT flow the same. His epistles and Revelation do and as such they have both been corroborated as being written by John. The author of John is clearly the "disciple who Jesus loved", as depicted in John 21:20-24.
    I challenge you to find out WHO that person is based on what the gospels say.

    LOL Major, just because you didn't or weren't to know, doesn't mean ALL men are not to know. Do you purport to be the best Biblical scholar on the planet?
    The fact is I believe Luke is the author of Hebrews, based on this book; Lukan Authorship of Hebrews
  4. Well Gents, to my way of thinking, there is a problem in nominating Lazarus as the author of John's Gospel.
    Given this statement, : "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. " John 21:24. I take this to be a statement made by the author about himself.
    Verse 25, is a general summation, it is built on top of V24, so...........Coming at the end of the writing, it seems inescapable that this certification of authenticity would apply to the whole of the Gospel narrative and not be just an added footnote........agreed?
    1. Lazarus was locked away in a sealed cave for four days and could not have been 'bearing witness about these things' that occurred while Jesus was yet afar off etc. Ref John chapter 11.
    2. Lazarus was not numbered among the twelve, indeed he was not even considered as a possible replacement for Judas Iscariot. Ref Acts 1:21,22. "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
    Lazarus might have followed Jesus after he was saved from the grave though because of the implication that he was not living at home with his sisters at the time of Jesus' return visit John 12:9.
    And also, why only two candidates named to replace Judas when there were many many other followers? Why would not Lazarus' name been heard during this time? (if he was a serious contender and witness)
    He just did not qualify as a witness to the Ministry of Jesus, to the Gospel of Jesus, He spent a good deal of his time at home in Bethany, so the certification as given at the end (verse 24) must necessarily exclude Lazarus.....in my opinion.
  5. Yes calvin, it IS the author making a statement about himself. He identifies himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved", verse 20. If you read ALL the gospels, this phrase is ONLY used in the Gosepl of John. You see it in John 11:5, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7 and the above verse. You should see that it is all about the same person, Lazarus.

    Not pertinent, Luke wasn't with Jesus either. All his info was second hand in Luke. In Acts it is first and second hand and in Hebrews, it is all second hand. This does not effect the credibility of it, as long as it IS inspired by God. As a relative of Jesus he would have surely heard all the stories and had them verified by Jesus after he joined His group.

    The number of disciples Jesus had are numbered in Luke 10:1, where He appointed 72 others, in addition to the 12 Apostles, and sent them to harvest believers. Being a disciple does not mean your are also an Apostle and Apostleship is NOT required for authorship of any of the NT. The answer to why only 2 that were chosen to be picked from is in the verses you quoted from Acts 1.

    The issue in front of us, is simple, WHO is the "disciple whom Jesus loved"?
  6. And it is a good opinion and I like it.

    I wonder why the OP has not placed an interested opionion as this thread was his idea.

  7. LOOK up Major. How could you possibly miss my reply to calvin?
  8. John wrote John. who knows who wrote Hebrews
    Kevin likes this.
  9. I posted :
    Stan replied:
    Stan I believe it is pertinent.
    Luke never claims to be an eye witness to anything. On the contrary, reading Luke 1:1,2,3. clearly shows that he was never a witness, he merely compiled an account of Jesus' ministry drawing from the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

    The author of the gospel of John on the other hand claims to be a witness to all that is written there......something Lazarus can not claim.
    John 21:24 coming as it does at the close of the gospel pretty much means that this statement refers to the whole of John's gospel, so,I believe what I offered is indeed pertinent.
  10. The verse in John 21:24 reads; This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. He does not say ALL that I have written.
    You assumption that this comment refers to the whol of the books is an assumption. It comes after verses 20-23 where Peter and Jesus are talking about the author. That is the subject of 'these things'. Peter was a little more than concerned when Jesus said what He did in verses 15-19, especially 19 where it reads; Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. It provoked Peter's question because of the very fact that Jesus has raised him from the dead. That's why Jesus said; ...what is that to you?
    There is no claim by the author of having witnessed ALL that he wrote about in this book, only the last interaction between Jesus and Peter and the explaination given in verse 23. His statement in verse 25 should clearly show that the author was NOT a witness to all of what Jesus did.
  11. Stan, I understand your reasoning here. I'm sure you will agree though, that this whole end dialog is peculiar.
    I think that the best accommodation of your thoughts on this would be that someone other than the main author contributed in large to Chapter 21.
    Re ch 21:
    I would not deduce from v18, that Jesus was telling Peter that he was to be crucified upside down in Rome.
    "truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."
    For example, it is Peter who will stretch out his own hands, and not have them stretched out by another. This it would seem, in order to assist in being dressed. Persons to be crucified were stripped bare except for their loin cloths if even left that much dignity. They were not attired in their 'Sunday best'. Tradition has it that Peter was martyred in Rome.
    No, it reads more like a foretelling of Peter ending his days in a 1st century 'aged care' facility. . So......
    In v22 'remain until I come' can not really be interpreted as 'come again' or 'return'. So the question is 'come where?'
    Though it could mean 'until I am revealed' which would infer the second advent perhaps. The information seems rather incomplete to me.
    In v24, "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." A fair question would be "How do we know that 'his testimony' is true"? This seems to be an extraordinary assertion to make about oneself, unless oneself was so well known to his readership that his integrity was widely accepted. Lazarus is rather obscure to us from reliable literature of the time. I can not see him being well enough known to be of such unquestioned integrity as to make such a claim.

    It is possible though that Lazarus or some other person wrote or contributed to ch 21, but not the rest of the gospel. Ch 21 seems to be something of a codicil in view of the closing words of ch20.
    John 20:30,31. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
    but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. That would be a natural enough ending, and is somewhat echoed in ch21 v25.
  12. That view would be conducive ONLY to support your insistance on it NOT being Lazarus. Nothing in the end of the book detracts from the style of the whole book.

    I don't deduce from v18 that Peter was crucified either. As a matter of fact, there is nothing internal to scripture that supports that view, and nothing very viable externally either.
    There are authors who have tried to provide answers to the question of how Peter died, but I find it of no consequence or significance, other than it would glorify God. Both Paul and Peter died in Rome and that is ALL we know for sure.
    John 21:22-23 properly reads; Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
    The statement is obviously used to debunk the view that Lazarus would live until Jesus returned.
    Many people try to say the same thing today, even though the words are there.
    I don't know what 'reliable' literature you have read on the subject of Lazarus, but I read in John 12:9-11; Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.
    You assertion does NOT bear with what scripture actually says. Lazarus was very significant to the early church. Verses 17-18 also confirm Lazarus was very significant and in NO WAY obscure to the people, nor the Pharisees who wanted him dead.
    Are you saying the Bible is NOT reliable literature of the time? I beg to differ, with extreme prejudice.

    Chapter 21 is NOT a codicil, it doesn't amend or change anything. It continues and closes out Jesus' earthly ministry, and again, is consistent with the style and character of the actual author from the beginning of this book. Verse 25 reiterates and finalizes what is written. Verses 30 & 31 of John 20 close off the statement that Jesus makes previous to that in verse 29.

    Natural is NOT how we read the Bible calvin, and human reasoning is not either. The Bible is NOT a book we simply read and manipulate to fit our thoughts or beliefs, it is a book we use to observe and take notice of what actually happened. This is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
  13. OK Stan I recommend you read again my reply #4. You might like to revise your comment.
    In that reply, I covered and considered the incident mentioned in John 12:9,10,11. did I not?
    Re your last quoted statement, you ask a question and then argue against a not as yet supplied answer!
    You differ only in that you believe contrary to 99% of Christendom that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John.
    The Bible was 'reliable literature of the time'. What has happened in the intervening years at the hands of those with personal agendas and unorthodox views is something else altogether.
    It is clear enough that you are not really considering what I post, so I see no point in investing any further valuable time on you.
  14. OK calvin, I read it again and looked at my answers. Your comment was, "Lazarus might have followed Jesus after he was saved from the grave though because of the implication that he was not living at home with his sisters at the time of Jesus' return visit John 12:9" You call this COVERING the incident? You did NOT.
    As I know for a fact you know how to use the quote tools on this site, stop obfuscating and use them. Can you supply a citation for your 99% assertion? All you have to do is search Google to find there are many opinions as to the authorship of the Gospel of John. I have read most of them and find Lazarus to be the most credible, because I SEE it in the scripture. You would rather believe maybe Lazarus wrote the final chapter but not ALL the book. The thing is you have no reason to believe the former and NOT believe it for the latter. I'm not asking you to believe me, just believe what you see in scripture and if you really don't see it, well my condolences.
    What I am doing, as the OP, is addressing your refutations or rebuttals. If this bothers you then why do you make comments? You start well, but you seem to have problems either finishing of accepting that someone else, or maybe just me, can have something viable to say about scripture, that you do not know. I am NOT here to make you feel good about yourself my friend. Just to express the truth that I see in God's Word.
  15. For the record. Stan posted :
    However what I really posted was:
    In considering an incident, I covered it. It is a very misleading practice to critique a partial quote and then proceed as though the whole matter was critiqued.
    Then in post #12 Stan posted:

    I'm not sure what assertion I an being credited with here. The only point I have really made is that Lazarus is not a serious contender for the authorship of John's gospel because he was not witness to the whole of Jesus' ministry. Try as I might I can not see how the the above quoted passage does anything other than support the fact that Lazarus was not with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry. That is the only assertion I have made...really.
    Perhaps Stan did not read my post #4. In that post I pointed out that Lazarus was sealed up in a cave for four days. Cave, tomb?, the idea is definitely isolation. Lazarus was not a companion of Jesus prior to his being released from the tomb.
    Stan then posts

    So it becomes unclear what 'reliable' literature is being relied on. Is it the Scripture or is it googled opinion about the scripture that provides that person with a guiding light to"SEE it in the scripture"?
    Myself, I rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Scriptures.
    From the opening post:
    I submit that these studies were based on extra Biblical literature and not the scripture.

    The reader should consider these things:
    1. Matt 26:20. There are mentioned here 'the twelve'. Obviously, the twelve disciples.
    2. Mark 14:17. There are mentioned here 'the twelve'. Obviously, the twelve disciples.
    3. The disciple that Jesus loved was one of those at the last supper, hence he was one of the twelve. John 21:20. Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"
    There is the testimony of three witnesses against Lazarus being 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
    Never mind what googled articles say: the Scriptures say 2 Cor 13:1. ............Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. and John 10:35, ......and Scripture cannot be broken.

    Lazarus was not the author of the forth gospel based on the Scriptures. If anyone wants to place googled articles on a a higher authority than Scripture, that is of course between them and the Lord. As for myself, I distance myself from such folly and am forthwith withdrawing from this hotbed of what I consider heresy.
    salmon likes this.
  16. Calvin this IS in the record. The forum and this thread is the record. All you're doing now is obfuscating and ducking your own statements. I'm not playing your game, especially since you said you didn't want to waste your valuable time on me. You know how to use the tools here and are just trying to mislead the discussion by the way you formatted the above post. People can read back to see what was actually said by you. Typically you now deem this thread as heresy. Always a losers ploy I regret to say.
    I'm finished responding to you on this thread. You have been properly instructed.
  17. And so we respond to each other in brotherly love ....

    Without love we are nothing more than religious nutcases, what defines us from the false religions out there?

    Apart from all the solid biblical references that John the apostle wrote the book (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24) all the early church fathers, Irenaeus (AD 140-203); Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 155-222) and Origen (AD 185-253) all give credit to the Disciple John for the authorship of the Gospel of John.

    John was part of the 12 disciples and incredibly important and featured prominantly in the 1st century church, amazing how his name is not mentioned in the Gospel of John which would be a huge mistake unless he was the actual author.

    Can we put this to rest now - the author of the Gospel of John has not changed in the last two thousand years?

    Stan all I can recommend is go and study this further using credible proven theological and historical methods - the determination of historical authorship is not placed upon on a verse. For instance there has been huge debate over some of Paul's letters even when Paul said he actually wrote the letters, yet the authorship is proven through other literary means, like style, the use of certain phrases, historical accuracy etc.
  18. Right, pull the old "holier than thou" card" to enforce your own view. Nice.
    The scriptures you quoted do NOT say John wrote John. They all talk about the disciple who Jesus loved. As a matter of fact, seeing as Lazarus was Jesus' cousin, it makes a lot of sense that He would tell Mary & Lazarus what he did in 19:26. John was no relation to them.
    When you make an assertion that a church father supports your view, it is proper to give a citation, NOT just a name and years lived. Being an Apostle was NOT a prerequisite to being an author of one of the gospels, otherwise Luke & Mark would not be in our Bible. The fact is John is mentioned only a couple of times in the synoptic gospels, only in the context of who the twelve Apostles were. That is why they are called 'synoptic'. For some reason, the author of John did not include this reference. The four gospels contain very little that is common to ALL. There are 160 events that are noted in the four gospels and out of them, the feeding of the 5000 is the first that is common to ALL four gospels. The next one doesn't appear until the Last Supper, followed shortly thereafter by the kiss of Judas, arrest of Jesus, trial at the Sanhedrin, carrying of the cross, the crucifixtion and the empty tomb. The last commonailty is the Great Commission. So out of 160 events named in at least one of the gospels, only nine are common to all four gospels.

    You are correct in one thing, the author has NOT changed in the last 2000 years! It was Lazarus from the beginning.
    If you feel this is too strenuous for you then by all means feel free to bow out of the conversation.

    The authorship of Paul is NOT the topic here, however I have no problem with what he is credited with writing.
  19. Ok - may God bless you in your studies
  20. This topic has been well discussed and no minds are going to be changed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page