What kind of narrator was John in the Bible?

Answer 1

Careful reading of the Greek now suggests a much more eye-witness style account hidden within the rhetoric. Also, comparison of very early fragments of the gospel that have been reliably dated to the end of the first century/first half of the second, such as the fragments kept in the Rylands University Library, Manchester (see P. Ryl. Gk. 457), strongly suggest that little - if any - alteration has been made to the document as a whole. So theologians now regard John's gospel as most likely based on John's (the apostle and closest friend of Jesus) personal experiences, especially because the details that other documents and modern Archaeology have confirmed within the text are only really plausible if an eyewitness account was used as a basis for the gospel. So most modern theologians now think that John was the author of the book, but, like Paul, uses a scribe to write down the actual Greek.

John's book is unique among the Gospels. Though one or two maverick theologians have claimed some basis on Luke, this is very unlikely. For one thing Luke concentrates on parables, miracles and healing. In John we have fewer parables, miracles and healing than all of the other gospels put together. In John, miracles are not called as such but are called 'signs' pointing to just who Jesus is. Secondly, over 80% of Luke's account is not present in John - less than 20% in common suggests that there was little link, if any, between the two accounts.

Furthermore, unlike Luke, who wrote a systematic biographical account of Jesus, John abandons the biography and instead takes us through various episodes - ignoring the birth and early life, and launching immediately into a parallel of Genesis 1 underlining the divinity of Christ. He then splits his book into sections, each one including a scene, a sign (miracle), and, as a result of that miracle, a great 'I AM' statement from Christ.

The climax comes in the passion. Unlike Luke, John has no 'last supper' but instead has Jesus washing the disciples' feet. The crucifixion and resurrection are provided in eye-witness detail - moreso than any other Gospel (and let's not forget that the gospels record that John was the only disciple at the foot of the Cross). Finally, John ends with the climax to his gospel - the meeting of Thomas - who doubted the resurrection of Jesus unless he could see him with his own eyes - with the resurrected Jesus, when he falls on his knees and worships him calling him 'My Lord, and my God' thus reiterating the divinity of Christ from the first words of the book.

Answer 2

The anonymous author of John's Gospel, now known as 'John', wrote for a mildly Gnostic Christian community which appears to have split shorlty after the Gospel was written. The version of the Gospel that has come down to us was altered to make it more acceptable to the centrist Christian community that one group joined after leaving the original Johannine community. Biblical scholars say that John's Gospel was inspired by Luke's Gospel, but he clearly he felt no need to stick closely to the original storyline, for example moving the narrative about the cleansing of the Temple from the end of the story back to the very beginning. Origen (Commentary on John) in defending the Gospel, said "Although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually."

The narrator of John's gospel was particularly fluent in Greek and was able to take advantage of nuances that exist only in the Greek language in order to create hidden meanings in his text. He also appears to have set out to correct what he saw as improper veneration of the disciples Peter and Thomas, without appearing to take sides personally. Undoubtedly, he was a gifted narrator.

John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation, was an apocalyptic narrator. He seems to have gathered together a number of pre-Christian or proto-Christian sketches and placed them in the context of his letters to the seven churches. He had an entirely different style to the author of John's Gospel, more suited to critiquing the teachings of the churches than to proselytising a gospel.