What is the difference between the Gospel of John and 1 John?

Answer 1

It is traditional to believe that 1 John was written by the author of John's Gospel, so the first thing to recognise is that both 1 John and John's Gospel were originally anonymous and only attributed to the disciple John later in the second century. Scholars say that the Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events it portrays, thus ruling out John or any other disciple as its author. In fact, a careful analysis of John's Gospel shows that it was actually inspired by Luke's Gospel.

1 John and John's Gospel were certainly written in the same community, known today as the Johannine community because of the traditional association with John, and 1 John shows evidence of a split in the community.

Some scholars say that 1 John was written in 3 stratas and by various authors, and that this process was completed before the Gospel of John. The first strata was from a Jewish, pre-Christian sect; the second strata made reference to Jesus as the Son of God; the third strata saw him as "coming in the flesh" for propitiation of sins and as "the Christ". An important difference compared to John's Gospel is that the author of the Johannine epistles never referred to Jesus as the"Word", other than in the single instance of the disputed verse, 1 John 5:7. This verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts of this epistle and is widely regarded as a fourth century insertion.

Whether 1 John had a single author, a team of authors or was written over time, with the last stage being completed early in the second century, we do not know who the author or authors were.

AnswerThe Apostle John was the writer of 1, 2, and 3 John as well as the Gospel of John.

Answer 2

The author of the Gospel of John is John the beloved disciple, the Apostle and the one who was imprisoned on the Island of Patmos. This is the same John who also wrote the letter known as 1 John.

The letter of 1John has numerous concepts which are typically Johanine which are not used in the same way by other authors, thus stamping it with his character.

Comment: Actually there is one group who are willing to accept the evidence and another group who doesn't. Those who accept the abundant evidence which exists regarding Johanine authorship, have no problem with the reasonable proposition that John was the author. Those who don't accept the evidence would assert that we don't know who else wrote these works, since no other author has evidence to support them and no extra-biblical source close to the event postulated an alternative.

Evidence in Favor of John the Apostle Being the Author Internal Evidence: The proposition that the author of the Gospel of John is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' and also the one who leaned on His breast at supper (21:20 cf. 21:7) and that the same person is indeed the apostle John is supported by a number of lines of evidence under three main points:

1. He was evidently a contemporary of the events described:

The writer was personally known to the High Priest and entered his residence along with Jesus on the night when Jesus was arrested (18:15). This author alone mentions the fact that it was the servant of the High Priest who had his ear cut off by Peter (18:10). This author deals with questions which are relevant to the period prior to AD 70 and not with controversies which were occurring in the second century connected with the Gnostic and Ebionite groups. (cf 6:15; 11:47-50) Many other details indicate contempoaneity with the events described.

2. He was Jew of Palestine:

The opening words of the book demonstrate an acquaintance with Hebrew (cf Genesis 1:1). On three occasions there are quotes from the Hebrew (12:40; 13:18; 19:37). There is intimate knowledge displayed regarding the Hebrew festivals viz. the Festival of Booths (7:2 Tabernacles KJV) the Feast of Dedication (10:22) and the Passover (21:13,23; 6:4; 13:1;18:28). Jewish customs and ways of thinking are familiar to the author eg. questions about purification (3:25;11:55), marriage customs, especially the method of arranging the waterpots (2:1-10); customs relating to burial (11:38,44; 19:31,40). Knowledge of the geography of Palestine is demonstrated such as the descent from Cana to the Sea of Galilee (2:12) and also the fact that Jacob's well is deep (4:11). Specific places such as Ephraim (11:54), Mount Gerizim (4:20), Jerusalem and the Kidron valley (18:1), Bethsaida and Siloam (5:2; 9:7), and Golgotha (19:17 etc).

3. He was John, the beloved disciple.

This can be deduced in a general sense from the above facts. He indicates the precise hours when particular events took place (1:39; 4:6,52; 19:14). He records quotations of the disciple Philip (6:7; 14:8), Thomas (11:16;14:5), Judas (14:22), and Andrew (6:8-9). He leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper on the night of the betrayal (13:23-25) and was among the three 'inner circle' of Peter, James, and John. Peter is distinguished from this author by name in 1:41-42;13:6,8 and James had become a martyr very early, long before the Gospel was written (Acts 12:2). He has a particular way of introducing himself (John 13:23; 19;26; 20:2; 21:7,20). These facts cumulatively make it difficult to come to any other conclusion, but that John was the author of the Gospel which bears his name.

Source: The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Merril F. Unger, Moody, Chicago. 1988. p 701.

Authorship of 1 John

Like the Gospel of John, this letter also does not state the name of its author. However there is strong evidence both internal and external that it was written by John who was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James (Mark 1:19-20). There are indeed some strong similarities between the Gospel of John and this letter such as distinctive Johanine phrases, a limited vocabulary (as expected from a fisherman, unlike a learned scholar) and the frequent contrast of opposites.

External evidence includes the testimony of the many of the early church fathers among which are Papias, Polycarp (himself personally acquainted with John), and Irenaeus that both works are from the pen of a single author, the apostle John.

While John is generally considered to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved," there is a growing number of Christians who, upon very detailed examination of key scriptures, believe it may have actually been Lazarus. The actual authorship of the Gospel of John has been in dispute for some time. Readers are referred to "The Discliple Whom Jesus Loved" book.

Principles of New Testament Authorship and Attribution It must be remembered that the Christians of the New Testament era were particularly interested in who wrote what. They had this concern in that they were concerned that what they were being taught had Apostolic and thus full truthful authority. This, in contrast to examples of spurious and mythological teachings as evidenced in for example, the Gospel of Thomas.

Thus, the early Christians were interested in authority which included either eyewitness testimony or direct access to it in the cases of Mark and Luke. In relation to John, if there were some persons who believed Lazarus, or anyone else for that matter, to have been the author. The fact that there is unanymity around the authorship of John is telling, particularly in the light of the diversity that would have been expected had anyone else been the author or if the author was unknown.

Answer 3

The title says that the Gospel was written by John, and other evidence identifies this John as the son of Zebedee. The internal evidence indicates that the author was (1) an apostle (1:14; cf. 2:11; 19:35), (2) one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20; cf. 21:24-25), and, still more specifically, (3) John the son of Zebedee (note the association of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" with Peter in 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; 21:2-23; cf. Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1-4:37; 8:14-25; Gal. 2:9). The external evidence from the church fathers supports this identification (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.2).

Answer 4

It is traditional to believe that 1 John and 2 John were written by the author of John's Gospel, so the first thing to recognise is that the epistles and John's Gospel were originally anonymous, and only attributed to the disciple John later in the second century. Scholars say that the Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events it portrays, thus ruling out John or any other disciple as its author. In fact, a careful analysis of John's Gospel shows that it was actually inspired by Luke's Gospel.

1 John, 2 John and John's Gospel were certainly written in the same community, known today as the Johannine community because of the traditional association with John, and 1 John shows evidence of a split in the community.

Some scholars say that 1 John was written in 3 stratas and by various authors, and that this process was completed before the Gospel of John. The first strata was from a Jewish, pre-Christian sect; the second strata made reference to Jesus as the Son of God; the third strata saw him as "coming in the flesh" for propitiation of sins and as "the Christ". An important difference compared to John's Gospel is that the author of the Johannine epistles never referred to Jesus as the"Word", other than in the single instance of the disputed verse, 1 John 5:7. This verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts of this epistle and is widely regarded as a fourth century insertion.

Whether the Johannine epistles had a single author, a team of authors or were written over time, with the last stage being completed early in the second century, we do not know who the author or authors were.

Answer 5

A:

The three Johannine epistles, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, are traditionally attributed to the apostle John, although scholars say this attribution is unlikely to be correct.

2 John and 3 John were written, probably in the first quarter of the second century, by an unknown author who called himself "the Presbyter." The apostle John would hardly have referred to himself as a presbyter or appealed to Gaius as a "co-worker" (3 John 8). Nor is it plausible that Diotrephes, who exercises authority in the church, would flout John's authority, knowing him to be an apostle. Thus the author of these two letters must remain anonymous and be referred to simply as "the Presbyter."

It is possible, though unlikely, that 1 John was also written by the Presbyter.

This epistle is longer than the two written by the Presbyter and in a different style. It was written by a member of the Johannine community that had produced John's Gospel, after an acrimonious split in that community.

Answer 6

To answer this question, it is useful to determine whether the author of the Gospel According to St John was likely to have been the disciple John. Had this author been the disciple John he could be expected to have a good knowledge of the life of Jesus and not be required to rely on other sources for information. Yet there is evidence that the author of John based his Gospel on that of Luke, although he made some effort to write new episodes about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Just two examples to show this:

• Luke and John are the only gospels that mention sisters called Mary and Martha, and the only gospels that mention Lazarus. Luke contains a brief story of Jesus visiting the sisters, while Lazarus is in a parable that mentions his resurrection hypothetically. John wrote an important episode, in which Jesus visited the sisters, Mary and Martha, and resurrected their dead brother, Lazarus. The similarities are too great to be mere coincidences, yet they are not the same story.
  
• John narrated an episode in which the risen Jesus appeared to the fishermen beside the Sea of Tiberias and, casting their nets on the other side, they caught so many fish that they could not bring them all in. This is really a repetition of the miracle catch of fish described by Luke as an event which took place at the same spot during Jesus' life. Once again, the similarities are too great to be mere coincidences - the author of John copied material from Luke and was therefore not a disciple of Jesus.
  

Since Luke's Gospel can be shown to have been written no earlier than the 90s of the first century CE, John's Gospel seems to have been written early in the second century. It is highly improbably that a disciple who followed Jesus before 30 CE would still be alive, even as a very elderly person, in the second century. We do not know the author of John's Gospel, but he was probably born in the second half of the first century.

An important difference compared to John's Gospel is that the author of the Johannine epistles never referred to Jesus as the"Word", other than in the single instance of the disputed verse 1 John 5:7. This verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts of this epistle and is widely regarded as a fourth century insertion. The Johannine epistles were written by one author, who styled himself as the 'elder' and certainly came from the same community as the Gospel author, but we can not be certain whether he was actually the author of the Gospel or even a major contributing author of the Gospel.

Answer 7

The Gospel of John is one of the four Gospels in the New Testament that focuses on the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus. 1 John is an epistle or letter written by the apostle John that provides guidance and encouragement to early Christian communities. While the Gospel of John recounts events from Jesus' life, 1 John offers pastoral advice and addresses issues of faith and Christian living.

Answer 8

The Gospel of John was a book about Jesus' life and 1 John was a letter to his fellow Christians for encouragement and counsel.

Answer 9

Yes. Not John the Baptist, but John the Apostle.