تأليف الكتابات اليوحناوية

تناقش العلماء حول تأليف الكتابات اليوحناوية (إنجيل يوحنا ورسائل يوحنا الثلاثة وسفر الرؤيا) منذ القرن الثالث على الأقل. يلاحظ جورج بيزلي-موراي أن «كل شي نريد معرفته عن هذا الكتاب إنجيل يوحنا غير مؤكد، وكل شي يبدو معروفا عنه هو محل خلاف».^[1] محور النقاش هو ما إذا كتب تلك الكتابات شخص واحد وعن هوية المؤلف أو المؤلفين.

نسبت التقاليد القديمة كل تلك الكتابات إلى يوحنا بن زبدي.^[2] وحسب قرار جلاسيوس فإن مؤلف رسالتي يوحنا الثانية والثالثة هو شخص مختلف يعرف بأنه يوحنا وهو قسيس (انظر يوحنا القسيس).^[3] يرفض النقد العالي الذي يمثل العلماء المسيحيين الليبراليين والعلماء العلمانيين تأليف يوحنا التلميذ لتلك الأعمال.

تختلف وجهات النظر حول الموضوع من تأليف الشخص نفسه أو أكثر من شخص وحتى نظريات عن تأليف جماعي. يوافق كثير من العلماء اليوم أن سفر الرؤيا كتبه شخص مختلف في 95 للميلاد تقريباً وهو يوحنا البطمسي وأن بعض الأجزاء قد تعود لوقت حكم نيرو في بداية الستينات.^[2]^[4] يتفق معظم الباحثين على أن جميع الرسائل الثلاثة مكتوبة من قبل المؤلف نفسه، على الرغم من وجود جدل حول من هو هذا المؤلف.^[5]^[6]^[7] ويجادل بعض العلماء وجود مؤلف وحيد أو أكثر للكتابات الأخرى لكنه ليس يوحنا التلميذ،^[2] بينما يجادل آخرون أن مؤلف الرسائل يختلف عن مؤلف الإنجيل وأنها كلها تعود للمجتمع نفسه.^[8] حسب التقاليد أتى الإنجيل والرسائل من أفسس في 90-110 تقريباً، مع تأكيد بعض العلماء أن الأصل سوري.^[9]

يجادل بعض العلماء بأن يوحنا بن زبدي لم يكتب أياً من هذه الأعمال،^[10]^[11] على الرغم من أن آخرين، لا سيّما جات روبنسون، والبروفيسور إف. إف. بروس، وليون موريس، ومارتن هينغل، يجادلون أن يكون يوحنا بن زبدي قد كتب على الأقل بعض من النصوص، على وجه الخصوص الإنجيل.^[12]^[13]

مراجع عدل

^ George R. Beasley-Murray, John: Word Biblical Commentary Volume 36 Second Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), xxxii
^ ^أ ^ب ^ت Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible, (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355
^ Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), though historians dispute the connection.
^ Ehrman، Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. ص. p.468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. {{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |صفحات= يحتوي على نص زائد (مساعدة)
^ Kruger، Michael J. My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. ص. 272. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.
^ Brown، Raymond E. The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary. ص. 105. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.
^ Marshall، I. Howard. The Epistles of John. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.
^ Ehrman, pp.178-9.
^ Brown، Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. ص. p.334. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |صفحة= يحتوي على نص زائد (مساعدة)
^ "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." ستيفن هاريس, Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
^ Kelly، Joseph F. (1 أكتوبر 2012). History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts. Liturgical Press. ص. 115. ISBN:978-0-8146-5999-1. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.
^
Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, (ردمك 978-0-8028-2504-9), pp. 4–5, 24, 35–7. "Continental scholars have ... abandoned the idea that this gospel was written by the apostle John, whereas in Great Britain and America scholarship has been much more open to the idea." Abandonment is due to changing opinion rather "than to any new evidence." "Werner, Colson, and I have been joined, among others, by I. Howard Marshall and J.A.T. Robinson in seeing the evidence as pointing to John the son of Zebedee as the author of this Gospel." The view that John's history is substandard "is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic. ... It is difficult to ... regard John as having little concern for history. The fact is John is concerned with historical information. ... John apparently records this kind of information because he believes it to be accurate. ... He has some reliable information and has recorded it carefully. ... The evidence is that where he can be tested John proves to be remarkably accurate."
- Bruce 1981 pp. 52–4, 58. "The evidence ... favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel. ... John knew the other gospels and ... supplements them. ... The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John." John's style is different so Jesus' "abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting. ... He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity. ... It is the story of events that happened in history. ... John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context."
- Dodd p. 444. "Revelation is distinctly, and nowhere more clearly than in the Fourth Gospel, a historical revelation. It follows that it is important for the evangelist that what he narrates happened."
- Temple, William. "Readings in St. John's Gospel". MacMillan and Co, 1952. "The synoptists give us something more like the perfect photograph; St. John gives us the more perfect portrait".
- Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked".
- Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John. نسخة محفوظة 21 يونيو 2014 على موقع واي باك مشين.
^
Dr. كرايغ بلومبرغ, cited in Lee Strobel The Case for Christ, 1998, Chapter 2.
- Marshall, Howard. "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary", ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804
- Robinson, J. A. T. "The Priority of John" P 122
- Cf. Marsh, "John seems to have believed that theology was not something which could be used to read a meaning into events but rather something that was to be discovered in them. His story is what it is because his theology is what it is; but his theology is what it is because the story happened so" (p 580–581).

انظر أيضاً عدل

الأدب اليوحناوي

[1] George R. Beasley-Murray, John: Word Biblical Commentary Volume 36 Second Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), xxxii

[Harris-2] أ ^ب ^ت Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible, (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355

[3] Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), though historians dispute the connection.

[Ehrman-4] Ehrman، Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. ص. p.468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. {{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |صفحات= يحتوي على نص زائد (مساعدة)

[5] Kruger، Michael J. My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. ص. 272. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.

[6] Brown، Raymond E. The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary. ص. 105. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.

[7] Marshall، I. Howard. The Epistles of John. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.

[8] Ehrman, pp.178-9.

[9] Brown، Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. ص. p.334. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |صفحة= يحتوي على نص زائد (مساعدة)

[Fourth_Gospel_1985_p._355-10] "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." ستيفن هاريس, Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

[Kelly2012-11] Kelly، Joseph F. (1 أكتوبر 2012). History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts. Liturgical Press. ص. 115. ISBN:978-0-8146-5999-1. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2018-11-17.

[Morris1995-12] Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, (ردمك 978-0-8028-2504-9), pp. 4–5, 24, 35–7. "Continental scholars have ... abandoned the idea that this gospel was written by the apostle John, whereas in Great Britain and America scholarship has been much more open to the idea." Abandonment is due to changing opinion rather "than to any new evidence." "Werner, Colson, and I have been joined, among others, by I. Howard Marshall and J.A.T. Robinson in seeing the evidence as pointing to John the son of Zebedee as the author of this Gospel." The view that John's history is substandard "is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic. ... It is difficult to ... regard John as having little concern for history. The fact is John is concerned with historical information. ... John apparently records this kind of information because he believes it to be accurate. ... He has some reliable information and has recorded it carefully. ... The evidence is that where he can be tested John proves to be remarkably accurate."
Bruce 1981 pp. 52–4, 58. "The evidence ... favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel. ... John knew the other gospels and ... supplements them. ... The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John." John's style is different so Jesus' "abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting. ... He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity. ... It is the story of events that happened in history. ... John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context."

Dodd p. 444. "Revelation is distinctly, and nowhere more clearly than in the Fourth Gospel, a historical revelation. It follows that it is important for the evangelist that what he narrates happened."

Temple, William. "Readings in St. John's Gospel". MacMillan and Co, 1952. "The synoptists give us something more like the perfect photograph; St. John gives us the more perfect portrait".

Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked".

Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John. نسخة محفوظة 21 يونيو 2014 على موقع واي باك مشين.

[13] Bruce 1981 pp. 52–4, 58. "The evidence ... favor[s] the apostolicity of the gospel. ... John knew the other gospels and ... supplements them. ... The synoptic narrative becomes more intelligible if we follow John." John's style is different so Jesus' "abiding truth might be presented to men and women who were quite unfamiliar with the original setting. ... He does not yield to any temptation to restate Christianity. ... It is the story of events that happened in history. ... John does not divorce the story from its Palestinian context."

[14] Dodd p. 444. "Revelation is distinctly, and nowhere more clearly than in the Fourth Gospel, a historical revelation. It follows that it is important for the evangelist that what he narrates happened."

[15] Temple, William. "Readings in St. John's Gospel". MacMillan and Co, 1952. "The synoptists give us something more like the perfect photograph; St. John gives us the more perfect portrait".

[16] Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked".

[17] Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John. نسخة محفوظة 21 يونيو 2014 على موقع واي باك مشين.

[Strobel,_Lee_1998-13] Dr. كرايغ بلومبرغ, cited in Lee Strobel The Case for Christ, 1998, Chapter 2.
Marshall, Howard. "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary", ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804

Robinson, J. A. T. "The Priority of John" P 122

Cf. Marsh, "John seems to have believed that theology was not something which could be used to read a meaning into events but rather something that was to be discovered in them. His story is what it is because his theology is what it is; but his theology is what it is because the story happened so" (p 580–581).

[19] Marshall, Howard. "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary", ed J. D. Douglas et al. Leicester 1980. II, p 804

[20] Robinson, J. A. T. "The Priority of John" P 122

[21] Cf. Marsh, "John seems to have believed that theology was not something which could be used to read a meaning into events but rather something that was to be discovered in them. His story is what it is because his theology is what it is; but his theology is what it is because the story happened so" (p 580–581).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]