[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/authorship-of-the-joanic-writings\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/authorship-of-the-joanic-writings\/","headline":"Authorship of the Joanic writings","name":"Authorship of the Joanic writings","description":"San Juan in Patmos, work of Vel\u00e1zquez. The Jo\u00e1nico writings are the John’s Gospel , the First Epistle of John","datePublished":"2017-12-28","dateModified":"2017-12-28","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/44a4cee54c4c053e967fe3e7d054edd4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/44a4cee54c4c053e967fe3e7d054edd4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/9\/95\/Diego_Vel%C3%A1zquez_018_%28John_the_Evangelist_from_Patmos%29.jpg\/250px-Diego_Vel%C3%A1zquez_018_%28John_the_Evangelist_from_Patmos%29.jpg","url":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/9\/95\/Diego_Vel%C3%A1zquez_018_%28John_the_Evangelist_from_Patmos%29.jpg\/250px-Diego_Vel%C3%A1zquez_018_%28John_the_Evangelist_from_Patmos%29.jpg","height":"332","width":"250"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/authorship-of-the-joanic-writings\/","wordCount":5921,"articleBody":" San Juan in Patmos, work of Vel\u00e1zquez. The Jo\u00e1nico writings are the John’s Gospel , the First Epistle of John , the JUAN SECOND EPISTOLA , the Third Step of John and the Apocalypse (also called Juan’s apocalypse ). All of them share certain similarities in the theological background, but there are also differences that cause today’s debate. Traditionally, these New Testament books have been attributed to John the Apostle, who is assumed to be the same as John the Evangelist; However, especially since there is a strong criticism, the question about authorship of the Joanic writings It has been disputed. Previously, the question of authorship of the five books was barely touched. However, the decree of the year 382, \u200b\u200bdifferentiates the Gospel , the first epistle and the book of Apocalypse , which are attributed to John the Apostle, while the second and third epistles are attributed to “John the Presbyter.” Today, the texts remain approximately separately; The points of view of authorship vary from stating that they are from the apostle, to affirm that the author is another, called “John” for convenience, to group authorships. History of the use of Joanic writings [ To edit ] In the first two centuries of Christianity, the Matthew Gospel It was the primary instrument of catechesis\u2014 Juan It has always been considered the last to be written, the authorship date is traditionally given between the 90s and 100, although modern studies often suggest a still subsequent date. Under the influence of Irenaeus and his “canon of truth” of the four gospels, the John’s Gospel It became the cornerstone of baptismal catechesis in Rome. During the first council of Nicea, the Gospel was one of the greatest supports of the high Christology proposed by the parents of the Council. On the one hand, several parents of the church of the century II They never cited a Juan , and on the other hand, the oldest written comment of any New Testament book was the writing about Juan By Heraclitus, a disciple of the Gnostic Valentinius. Nag Hammadi manuscripts show that many of the first readers of the John’s Gospel They responded to the text in “surprising and imaginative ways” (Pagels 2003 p. 115 & ndash117). Origins, Agust\u00edn, Juan Cris\u00f3stomo and Cyril of Alexandria made comments of the Joanic works, being those of Agust\u00edn the most numerous. In the Middle Ages, important comments were written by Ruperto de Deutz and Tom\u00e1s de Aquino. Critical School History [ To edit ] The era of the critical school of the works began with the work of K.G. Bretschneider in 1820 about Jo\u00e1nica authorship. Bretschneider questioned the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, and even declared based on the little knowledge that the author seemed to have from the territory of Palestine. He reasoned that, since the meaning and nature of the Jesus presented in the John’s Gospel It was very different from that of the synoptic gospels, its author could not have been a face -to -face witness of the events. Bretschneider cited the apologetic character of Juan, indicating a subsequent date of composition. Following Hegel’s philosophy, F.C. Baur denied any historical assessment of the fourth gospel. He declared that it would be only the synthesis work of a thesis-antithesis according to the Hegelian model-synthesis between the Judeo-Christian thesis (represented by Peter) and antithesis of Gentile Christianity (represented by Paul). He would also quote in his epistles a synthesis with the dualistic opposite forces of gnosticism. At that time, a drafting date was assigned to the Gospel around 170. Some modern critics use this reference for a late dating of the Gospel. The gospel [ To edit ] Literary criticism in the nineteenth and early twentieth century [ To edit ] Although the critical movement reached almost a complete agreement on the hypothesis of the two sources On the synoptic gospels, no agreement has been reached on the literary sources of the Jo\u00e1nico writings. Probably a typical example of critical theory about the development of these was given by Julius Wellhausen in 1908. He hypothed on a base document that was greatly modified by a later editor. According to him, the base document of the editions could be separated, praising the base document, and condemning the subsequent editor for its intrusion. Other critics, such as E. Schwarz, muddled dozens of \u201cyou brought you\u201d o Indications of rupture in narratives and speeches. Criticism in the early twenty century focused on the idea of Logos ( verb ), which was perceived as a Hellenistic concept. Thus, H. J. Holtzmann hypothesized about a dependence on the work of Philo Judaeus; Albert Schweitzer considered the work as a Hellenized version of Paulino mysticism, while R. Reitzenstein sought the origin of the work in the Egyptian and Persian mysteric religions. Rudolf Bultmann took a different approach to the work. Hypotized a Gnostic origin (specifically from Mandeism) for the work. He noticed the similarities with the Paulino Corpus, but he attributed this to the Hellenistic common background. He declared that the many contrast in the Gospel, between light and darkness, truth and lie, up and down, etc., show a tendency to dualism, explained by the gnostic roots of the work. Despite the Gnostic origin, Bultmann attributes to the author several improvements on Gnosticism, such as the Judeo-Christian position of the creation and demystification of the role of redeemer. His analysis left the Gospel as an investigation that is completely another and transcendent, and without leaving room for the author’s vision for the Church or the sacraments. Bultmann’s analysis is still widely used in German -speaking countries, although with many corrections and discussions. They have also made broad refutations to their analysis. Today, many Christian exegetes reject much of Bultmann’s theory, but accept some of their intuitions. For example, J. Blank uses Bultmann in his discussion about the final judgment and W. Th\u00fcsing uses it to discuss the ascent and glorification of Jesus. In the English -speaking world, Bultmann has had less impact. Instead, scholars tend to continue the investigation of Hellenistic and Platonic theories, generally returning to theories close to those of traditional interpretation. To give an example, G.H.C. McGregor (1928) and W.F. Howart (1943) belong to this group. Charles Alfred Honor\u00e9 Guignebert, who was a professor of Christianity History in Sorbonne and one of the most important authors about primitive Christianity at the beginning of the century XX , dice: “Later we will study the fourth gospel, but in relation to him, the conclusions of liberal criticism are very clear; it is after the others, which he has used deforming them; it is very doubtful that he knew other precise traditions than those containing these. It could not be attributed to the apostle John, and has no proper value; His school “(” Manual of Ancient History of Christianity “, ISBN 987-22675-6-1, p. 50) Recent criticism [ To edit ] The discovery of the manuscripts of the Dead Sea in Qumr\u00e1n marked a change in the Joanina school. Many of the hymns, which are presumed to come from a Essenia community, contain the same game between opposites – Luz and darkness, truth and lie – that the Gospel contains. Therefore the hypothesis that the Gospel was based on gnosticism fell into disuse. Many suggested that John the Baptist belonged to the Esenia community, and if John the Apostle was previously a disciple of the Baptist, he could have been influenced by his teaching. The resulting revolution in the Jo\u00e1n new Vision By J.A.T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 in Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information put the issue of authorship in a relative position. He considered the existence of a group of disciples around the old man the apostle who wrote their memoirs, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had already been used by Renan in Jesus life (“The life of Jesus”, 1863). The work of these scholars led the consensus again to a Palestinian origin of the text, instead of a Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of previous decades. In any case, the “Qumr\u00e1n fever” that originated from the discovery of the manuscripts is gradually decaying, with the theories of gnostic influences in the Jo\u00e1nic works again being proposed, especially in Germany. Some recent positions have seen the theology of the Jo\u00e1nico writings as directly opposed to the “Christians of Tom\u00e1s” (Riley 1995; Pagels 2003). Historicity [ To edit ] With the exception of Jesus life of Renan, who praised the historical and geographical details present in the Gospel, practically all critics prior to the century XX They denied any historical value to the work, based mainly on their conclusions on seven particular theses: first, that the tradition of authorship by John the apostle was created in the aftermath to support the Book Authority; second, that the book does not even proceed indirectly from the story of an eyewitness; Third, that the book was written as an apologetic work, not as history; fourth, that the synoptic tradition was used and adapted very freely by the author; fifth, that these deviations were not due to the application of other unknown sources to the authors of the synoptic gospels; sixth, that the speeches in the gospel express not the words of Jesus, but those of the evangelist; And therefore, that the fourth gospel has no value as a supplement of synoptics. Some passages are pointed out as support in favor of the historical nature of some facts contained in the evangelical story: In the second chapter, when Jesus cleans the temple of Jerusalem, the Jews tell him that the temple has been under construction for 46 years. This construction began the year 20 a. C. Bajo Herod the Great, dating the cleaning of the temple in 27, precisely when modern scholars place the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Similarly, John’s chronology about the death of Jesus seems more realistic, since the synoptic gospels have the judgment before the Sanhedrin on the first day of Easter, which was a rest day, while in the story of John the events the events were They produce in the parsceve. Thus, certain data are indicated that would be incompatible with the synoptic story: Simon of Cyrene who returns from working on the field, women who are going to buy ointments, Jos\u00e9 de Arimea who buys a sheet, etc. However, this could only be because the authors of the gospels would have a clearer and neutral count of the events that, as would be seen by someone in the present. The description of Jerusalem is more adjusted to the situation prior to the events of the year 70, specifically the details related to the pond of Silo\u00e9, the Portico de Solomon as a place of protection during the winter and the pavement of the Pilate’s pretory are accurate . The news of Cap. 4 About the Bethesda pond are correct in terms of the name and structure. [ first ] \u200b The allusions of Cap seem exact. 4 of Juan in relation to the Samaritans to his theology, his practice of worship on Mount Gueriz\u00edn and the location of the Jacob well. [ first ] \u200b Theological themes are marked by the religious calendar, particularly in relation to Easter (chap To these parties. [ first ] \u200b Burney has pointed out, as the generality of critics from Grocio point out that the author’s mother tongue is semi -diaics. [ 2 ] On the other hand there are various contextual transliterations, but unlike what would be expected in a Jew of the century II It’s about Arameism but not strand. In general, vocabulary in Greek is very poor, there are no more than a thousand different words. [ 3 ] \u200b Fredriksen 2002 (see also [first] ) See the explanation of Jesus ‘arrest and crucifixion in the fourth gospel as the most historically plausible: “The motivation of the priests is clear and has common sense:’ If we let [Jesus] continue … the Romans will come and destroy our sacred places and our nation. ‘ Caif\u00e1s continues, ‘It is necessary for a single man to die for the good of the people, to the whole nation to perish’ (Jn 11,48-50) “. Authority [ To edit ]  Early criticism [ To edit ] According to some critics, the first people to use the John’s Gospel They were the Gnostics from the beginning to the mid -second century, based on the comments made to Juan for the Ptolemy and Heracleon Gnostics, cited by Irenaeus and Origen. Others go further and declare that the author himself was gnostic, citing similarities with the Tom\u00e1s Gospel and the Felipe Gospel . The first accurate witness of Jo\u00e1nology among Church’s parents is Ignacio de Antioqu\u00eda, whose Letter to the Philippians It is based on John 3,8 and refers to John 10.7-9 and John 14.6. This would indicate that the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignacio’s death, which occurred around 107. By the middle of the century II , Polycarp of Esmirna used expressions taken from Juan’s letters. The author’s earlier testimony is that of Papias de Hierapolis, preserved in quotations in the history of the Church of Eusebio. This text is somewhat dark. Eusebio says that two different Juanes, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter must be distinguished, being the gospel assigned to the apostle and the Apocalypse to the presbyter. Irenaeus’s testimony, based on Papias, represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the apostle is said to live. Irenaeus was a Polycarp disciple, therefore, second generation after the apostle. Irenaeus unequivocally declares that the apostle is the author of the Gospel. Some critics reject the reference of Ignacio de Antioqu\u00eda as referring to the Gospel, and cite Irenaeus as the first to use it. Some go further and declare that Irenaeus is the author (or at least the last final editor) of the book. These critics declare that the theory of authorship Jo\u00e1nico was created by the primitive Church to give more authority to the work they used to combat Gnosticism. The recent discovery of the San Juan fragment (papyrus P52 of the John Rylands Library), typically dated around 100-150 (although some do so until 175), suggests that the text of the text of the John’s Gospel He quickly dispersed through Egypt. As the text dispersed by Egypt, several pieces of legendary information were preserved. Clemente de Alexandria mentions the missionary activity of John the Apostle in Asia Minor, and continues, “as for John, the last, seeing that in the gospels there is bodily issues, supported by his disciples and inspired by the Holy Spirit , wrote a spiritual gospel. ” ( Who is saved 42,1). Origins respond, when asked how Juan places the cleaning of the temple at the beginning instead of at the end, “Juan does not always tell the truth literally, but always tells the truth spiritually” ( Comment to Juan 10.4.6). In Alexandria, the authorship of the Gospel and the first epistle was never questioned. Rome was home to the only early rejection of the fourth gospel. The adversaries of montanism were responsible. Irenaeus says that these people tried to suppress the teaching of the Holy Spirit to be able to overcome montanism, and as a result they denied the authorship of the Gospel and its authority. Then Epifanio called this group, followers of the Cayo priest, the Alogoi in a word game between “without the word” and “without reason.” Modern criticism [ To edit ] The documents on the traditional authorship of the Gospel have certain weak points that have been exploited by critics. Irenaeus is accused of making papies of Hierapolis a disciple of John the Apostle to support his own theories: Eusebio later showed that Papias was a disciple of John the presbyter. But even Eusebio does not escape criticism. His appointments to Juan the Presbyter seem motivated by his arguments of the authorship of the Apocalypse . Irenaeus’s memoirs about Polycarp’s testimony are children’s memories, and lack clarity. For example, he cites the relations of Polycarpo and “Juan”, but never specifies what Juan is. He John’s Gospel He explicitly declares that it was written by the “disciple loved by Jesus”, so a great effort has been made to determine which person could be treated. Traditionally it is identified as John the Apostle, since otherwise, one of the most important apostles of the other gospels would not be mentioned within the fourth Gospel. However, some critics have suggested some other possibilities. F run and Sanders suggest L\u00e1zaro de Bethany, since John 11,31.36 explicitly indicate that Jesus “loved him”, and this is involved in the Marcos’s secret gospel . However, the fact that Lazarus is not mentioned in the Ministry of Galilee, and that there is no broad tradition about L\u00e1zaro’s apostolic activity after Jesus’ death, leaves this theory in doubt. Parker suggests that this disciple could be Juan Marcos; However, the facts of the apostles indicate that John Marcos was very young and later arrived as a disciple. J. Colson suggests that “John” was a priest of Jerusalem, thus explaining the priestly mentality in the fourth gospel. R. Schnackenburg suggests that “John” was an unknown resident of Jerusalem who was within the circle of friends of Jesus. He Felipe Gospel and the Gospel of Mary Magdalena They identify Mary Magdalena as the disciple that Jesus loved, a connection analyzed by Esther de Boer (in Meyer 2004) and made noticeable in the fiction work The Da Vinci Code . Finally, few authors, such as Loisy, Bultmann and Hans-Martin Schenke, come to “Juan” as a purely symbolic creation, a pseudonym idealized for a group of authors. In addition to the doubts about the identification of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” with the apostle John, there is also the question of whether this apostle was the author of the texts. Several objections have been given to the authorship of John the Apostle. First of all, the John’s Gospel It is a highly intellectual count of Jesus’ life, which requires a good level of education. But the synoptic gospels agree that John was a fisherman, who would surely not have much education. Against this objection, it can be noted that Juan was not a fishing fisherman, but someone who could have his own ship, and therefore could have access to sufficient income to pay a teaching. However, the Acts of the Apostles It will refiere to Juan as “without education” or “silence” A second objection to the authorship of John the apostle is in the importance given to the traditions of Jerusalem, which would be unusual for a Galileo. The answer usually given to this objection is that the knowledge of Jerusalem shown in the text is nothing more than what an annual pilgrim could know. John’s interest in Jerusalem seems to be totally dependent on his interest in Jesus. Finally, it is objected that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is not mentioned before the last dinner, so this disciple could not have been a visual witness of the first events of the Gospel. However, tradition has identified this disciple with the unnamed disciple of the first chapter. The structure of the Gospel also partially explains the “disappearance” of the disciples of the action center. The first twelve chapters, the “Book of Signs”, speak of the preaching and miracles of Jesus to the Jews, while the story of the Last Supper is concentrated in their particular relationship with their disciples. The possibility of a collective authorship of the fourth gospel is based on stylistic differences and narrative discourse. In particular, chapter 21 is very different from the main body of the Gospel, and it is thought that it could be a subsequent addition. RE. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: the tradition directly connected to the apostle, a partial edition of its disciples, a synthesis made by the apostle and the additions of the final editor. Many critics dated the writing of the Gospel in the last four or five years of the first century, although as already said, some even choose a much later date, typically at the time of Irenaeus. If this were the case, and if the “beloved disciple”, John the Apostle or other follower of Jesus were the main author, it should have had about 90 years on the date of the composition, which would be a very remarkable age for the century I , when life hopes were much shorter. On the other hand, if he actually lived until such age, the tradition taken from John 21 would be explained, that many believed that Jesus had said that the “beloved disciple” would never die. First epistle [ To edit ] The phraseology of this first letter from John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel, so the question of authorship is usually connected to the issue of authorship of the Gospel. There are several uses of phrases that occur only in the Gospel and in the first epistle, and anywhere else in the New Testament, such as “having sin”, “make the truth”, “rest” in a certain mystical state (in the Father, In the Son, in my love), etc. Both works have a semicolon that tends to the Greek – many statements begin with “all” or with “and”, the use of “literary inclusion” (the repetition of a phrase to indicate that the material between both inclusions comes together ), Minimum use of Greek particles. Both works have the same basic concepts: the world, the only chosen, the incarnation, the passage of death to life, truth and lies, etc. According to Eusebio, the book was not within those whose canonicity was in doubt; However, it is not included in the old Syrian canon. Teodoro de Mopsuestia also presented a negative opinion about its canonicity. Outside the Syrian world, the book has several early witnesses, and it seems that it was widely accepted. Given the similarity with the Gospel, many critics give the same authorship to the Epistle as the one given to the Gospel. Many refer to a Juanina school of which the letter was produced, possibly by the hand of the apostle itself. Second and third Ep\u00edtolas [ To edit ] Although tradition normally assigns the second and third epistles to John the Apostle, the fact that the author identifies himself as “the presbyter” (or “the priest”) leaves doubts about this traditional assignment, even in the church primitive As there are enough literary and theological similarities with the first epistle, these last two are usually assumed that they come from the same theological circle. Therefore, many schoolchildren assume that the author of these books would be a certain personality of the Circle of disciples of Juan. The similarities between the two books make it unlikely that they have two separate authors. This hypothetical author is usually called “John the Presbyter” to distinguish it from the apostle. The medieval legend, on the other hand, made equivalent to “John the Presbyter” with “John the Apostle”, and as many read chapter 21 of the Gospel as an indicator that John the apostle never died, the story of the Prestte , which was said was the apostle, still alive and writing in the Middle Ages. Apocalypse [ To edit ] The author of the Apocalypse book identifies himself as “Juan”, so the book has traditionally accredited John the Apostle. Evidence of this identification from Justino M\u00e1rtir has been found in his Dialogue with Trif\u00f3n . Other witnesses of this tradition are Papias, Melit\u00f3n, Irenaeo, Clemente de Alejandr\u00eda, Hip\u00f3lito, and Tertullian. The first doubts about the apostolic authorship of the book came in the century III . The presbyter fell from Rome (one of the \u201cAlogoi\u201d of epiphanium) identified the author with Cerinth, considered a heretic. The Bishop Dionisio of Alexandria rejected Apostolic Authors, but accepted his canonicity. More radically in the century IV , most of the Eastern Church rejected its canonicity. This point of view was shared by several parents of the Church, such as Cirilo de Jerusalem, Gregorio de Nacianzo, Juan Chrysostom and Teodoreto. It was also rejected in Syria. The question of canonicity was reopened in the West by the Protestants of the Reform. On the other hand, the Council of Trent of the Catholic Church reaffirmed its canonicity. Today many Christians accept this book as part of the canon. There are many affinities between this book and the fourth gospel: the use of allegories, symbolism, and similar metaphors such as “living water”, “the pastor”, “El Cordero”, and “El Mana”. However, the differences between the two are probably much more notable. The book of Apocalypse does not enter several of the typical Juaninos songs, such as light, darkness, truth, love and “the world” in a negative sense. The eschatology of both works is also very different. A precise identification of the author is almost impossible due to the lack of evidence. However, the work is usually assigned to a circle of disciples close to the apostle John. The composition date is widely discussed. Irenaeo mentions the end of the Domitian reign (which Eusebio and Jer\u00f3nimo repeat). This is the most common opinion among several modern critics who consider the work as written at once. However, Epifanio quotes the composition in the kingdom of Claudio, and the Muratorian fragment suggests the composition in Nero’s time. Some exegetes (Touilleux, Gelin, Feuillet) distinguish two dates: the publication (under domician) and the date of visions (under Vespasian). According to these theories, several editors would have retouched the document. The dated work is still very discussed in the community of scholars. See also [ To edit ] References [ To edit ] \u2191 a  b  c  Brown, Raymond E. (1999). The Gospel according to John, I-XII (J. Valiente Malla, trad.). Christianity editions. p. 51. ISBN\u00a084-7057-426-4 .   \u2191  Burney, Charles F. (2004) [1922]. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Eugene, Oregon (EE. UU.): Wipf & Stock Publishers. p.\u00a014. ISBN\u00a0978-1-5924-4598-1 .   \u2191  Castro S\u00e1nchez, Secondino (2008). San Juan Gospel . The New St. Jerusalem of Jerusalem (1a edition). Identing of Brook. p. 17. ISBN\u00a09788433022462 .    Bibliography [ To edit ] by Boer, Esther, 2004. Essay in The Gospels of Mary de marvin meyer, harpersanfrancisco. ISBN 0-06-072791-8 Denzinger, Heinrich Y Rahner, Karl. Handbook of symbols definition and declarations . 28 was edici\u00f3n. Herder: Freiburg, 1952. George, Augustin y Goulot, Pierre. Critical introduction to the New Testament . Herder: Barcelona, 1992. ISBN 84-254-1277-3 Pagels, Elaine, Johannine Gospels in Gnostic Exegesis Pagels, Elaine, 2003. Beyond Belief ISBN 0-375-70316-0 Riley, Gregory J., 1995. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis) Wijngaards, John. Handbook to the Gospels . ISBN 0-89283-136-7 Wiles, Maurice F., 1960. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) external links [ To edit ]     "},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki14\/authorship-of-the-joanic-writings\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Authorship of the Joanic writings"}}]}]