I've always had a fascination with the apostle John; perhaps it stems from John itself being one of my names but anyway I have long held the belief that the man lived to his mid 90s (and died alone in a desert) and was the author of the book of Revelation as well as some other letters in the New Testament, am I wrong?

Wikipedia is a resource open to us all ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle

(Short answer: Yes, you're likely wrong. The old age might be historical, though.)

As noted in the above Wikipedia reference the authors are primarily speaking of John, one of the sons of Zebedee. Lower down there comes a question as to whether this is the same John who wrote the Revelation, Gospel, etc...

More in the outlying territories my studies reveal that the author of the John Gospel and Revelation was the risen Lazareth , the "disciple whom the Lord loved". This was the John on the island of Patmos but i am unsure as to authorship of the epistles.

In a real sense the John Gospel was the only Gospel to which there is direct sense bound relationship to Christ Jesus, written by a man who was there.The others, known as synoptic gospels were not direct witnesses to the event.

Depending upon your perspective to your name, your covered.

Ok, as per the OrP-challenge, let this be my one on-topic post of the day:

There's a number of Johns in the NT:

- John the baptist
- John the apostle
- the John who supposedly wrote the Gospel
- the John who supposedly wrote the book of Revelation
- the John who supposedly wrote the three epistles 1-3John

Not all of these are identical.

- John the baptist, according to the gospels, baptized Jesus. He didn't write anything (to the extent that we know) and he didn't reach the age of 90.
- John the Apostle is, according to the gospels, one of the twelve apostles. Church tradition identifies him as the author of the gospel, revelation and 1-3John, but that's very likely not the case.
- that leaves the three different literary bodies: Gospel, Revelations, Epistles. Among those, the Gospel and the epistles share similar theology and a significant number of idiomatic similarities. They are therefore considered to be written by what's generally referred to as the Johannine community or Johannine school. It is possible/likely that the Apostle John was founder/founding member of that community. Among these, 2John is probably the oldest, as 3John 9 seems to refer back to 2John. 1John is younger than both but older than the Gospel.

- Revelations is very likely not written by the same guy/group as Gospel+epistles. Different theology, different language.

I assume you base this on John 20-21 and esp. 21,24f. Why would you assume that this note of authorship is historical? It's likely that Joh was written around 100-110 AD. IF that note were historical, it'd mean that John was indeed stone old: Let's assume he was around 20 during the mid-30ies AD. Add 70 years (to get to ~100AD) and John would have to be indeed 90+. It's kind of difficult to see how this works out. It's not impossible, of course. On top of the math, you'd have to explain why John as an eye-witness, supposedly living in Ephesus, let so much time pass: The pauline community in Ephesus (and asia minor in general) was founded in the early 50ies AD (Ephesus likely around 53-55). Mark was written around 70AD. That's quite some time for some not-very-young-anymore apostle to just sit by...

I can't speak to the "time" of the writing but most importantly the fact that John is the risen Lazareth. As you may or may not know Rudolph Steiner gave a series of lectures on each of the Gospels' individually and my statements are referral to the particular series of lectures on the Gospel of John . Now that I've , in some manner, referenced a call to authority, but not necessarily your authority, some of the interesting points of the Gospel can be gleaned.

One point that I find extremely interesting is when in this Gospel , at the Crucifixion, reference is made to Jesus's Mother and His Mother's sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene. It was not common at that time nor today for two sisters to have the same name. If the idea that John was the witness to this event then further reasoning must be brought to bare on the issue.

I can't so it now for I feel inadequate but this Gospel and in fact all of the Gospels were written by individuals with a spiritual nomenclature. Examples are when Christ Jesus "goes up to a mountain" which is a sign that He brings his disciples into the heavenly perspective and not totally the earthly. References to the 'sea" likewise are known in the mystery centers and are not referring to a body of water but in some manner connected.

In short, the Gospels and even the Old Testament cannot be understood , in reality, through modern scholarship. The further away from those times, say in 300 years from now, the worse it will become.

Aside from his intellectual tour de force of "The Philosophy of Freedom" Steiner then began to give lectures on humanity in reference to the cosmos by a trained, but not trance clairvoyance. An example of a trance clairvoyance is Edgar Cayce, also Joseph in the Old Testament and the doctor who brought forth this "Urantia" book , noted in this forum.

The work of the Anthroposophical Society is called spiritual science in which the exact mental stance of the modern scientist, and admirably so, is used in the training of an exact trained clairvoyant state, in full consciousness. The modern scientist speaks to the earthly or sense bound activities and the work of spiritual science is obviously the spiritual world vis a vis our earthly habitation.

It goes on and on but in reference to the John Gospel, it has been used as a meditative referent force throughout the religious and spiritual centers and so it is no ordinary document , unless the reader keeps it earth bound.

Have to go back and note that I'm not theorizing and find this aspect of work fascinating in that the risen Lazareth is new new John, writer of this Gospel and the Revelation. Can't speak to the dates but certainly pigeon holing the exact date offers nothing in the matter of content and form of the Gospel itself.

I did not reference the Epistles because I haven't come across their authorship , not because there is a possibility of another answer , but because I haven't come across it, or forgot it, and therefore didn't make any statement to the issue. Believe it or not, I can't speculate.

Was that anything like an initiate or mystery school?
I’m a sucker for the esoteric.

I believe in that too. It's obvious John the Apostle was most likely responsible for the Gospel according to John but I also subscribe to the theory that he is also responsible for the book of Revelation and the three letters of John.

My next contention would be why didn't he live to his mid 90s?

If religious historians believe that the letters (and subsequently the book of Revelation) were written around 100 A.D with John the Apostle said to be around 12-15 years younger than Jesus so that would make him born about 12-15 AD right and about late 80s to mid 90s when he finished both later pieces of work?

Nice post. I just wanted to add a couple of other points. First, while fretelöo is correct that most scholars think that John was written around 90-100, there was an interesting minority view popular in the 70's that argued that it was actually the earliest of the gospels (instead of Mark) and actually written sometime between 50-70 before the destruction of the temple.

As for authorship by the "beloved disciple," it should be noted that many scholars believe that Chapter 21 (the chapter that ascribes authorship to the beloved disciple) is actually a later appendix and not part of the original work. Of course, this doesn't mean that it wasn't actually written by the "beloved disciple."

According to UB paper 139 "The Twelve Apostles"

4. John Zebedee

(1553.6) 139:4.1 When he became an apostle, John was twenty-four years old and was the youngest of the twelve. He was unmarried and lived with his parents at Bethsaida; he was a fisherman and worked with his brother James in partnership with Andrew and Peter. Both before and after becoming an apostle, John functioned as the personal agent of Jesus in dealing with the Master’s family, and he continued to bear this responsibility as long as Mary the mother of Jesus lived.

(1553.7) 139:4.2 Since John was the youngest of the twelve and so closely associated with Jesus in his family affairs, he was very dear to the Master, but it cannot be truthfully said that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” You would hardly suspect such a magnanimous personality as Jesus to be guilty of showing favoritism, of loving one of his apostles more than the others. The fact that John was one of the three personal aides of Jesus lent further color to this mistaken idea, not to mention that John, along with his brother James, had known Jesus longer than the others.

(1554.1) 139:4.3 Peter, James, and John were assigned as personal aides to Jesus soon after they became apostles. Shortly after the selection of the twelve and at the time Jesus appointed Andrew to act as director of the group, he said to him: “And now I desire that you assign two or three of your associates to be with me and to remain by my side, to comfort me and to minister to my daily needs.” And Andrew thought best to select for this special duty the next three first-chosen apostles. He would have liked to volunteer for such a blessed service himself, but the Master had already given him his commission; so he immediately directed that Peter, James, and John attach themselves to Jesus.

(1554.2) 139:4.4 John Zebedee had many lovely traits of character, but one which was not so lovely was his inordinate but usually well-concealed conceit. His long association with Jesus made many and great changes in his character. This conceit was greatly lessened, but after growing old and becoming more or less childish, this self-esteem reappeared to a certain extent, so that, when engaged in directing Nathan in the writing of the Gospel which now bears his name, the aged apostle did not hesitate repeatedly to refer to himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” In view of the fact that John came nearer to being the chum of Jesus than any other earth mortal, that he was his chosen personal representative in so many matters, it is not strange that he should have come to regard himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” since he most certainly knew he was the disciple whom Jesus so frequently trusted.

(1554.3) 139:4.5 The strongest trait in John’s character was his dependability; he was prompt and courageous, faithful and devoted. His greatest weakness was this characteristic conceit. He was the youngest member of his father’s family and the youngest of the apostolic group. Perhaps he was just a bit spoiled; maybe he had been humored slightly too much. But the John of after years was a very different type of person than the self-admiring and arbitrary young man who joined the ranks of Jesus’ apostles when he was twenty-four.

(1554.4) 139:4.6 Those characteristics of Jesus which John most appreciated were the Master’s love and unselfishness; these traits made such an impression on him that his whole subsequent life became dominated by the sentiment of love and brotherly devotion. He talked about love and wrote about love. This “son of thunder” became the “apostle of love”; and at Ephesus, when the aged bishop was no longer able to stand in the pulpit and preach but had to be carried to church in a chair, and when at the close of the service he was asked to say a few words to the believers, for years his only utterance was, “My little children, love one another.”

(1554.5) 139:4.7 John was a man of few words except when his temper was aroused. He thought much but said little. As he grew older, his temper became more subdued, better controlled, but he never overcame his disinclination to talk; he never fully mastered this reticence. But he was gifted with a remarkable and creative imagination.

(1555.1) 139:4.8 There was another side to John that one would not expect to find in this quiet and introspective type. He was somewhat bigoted and inordinately intolerant. In this respect he and James were much alike — they both wanted to call down fire from heaven on the heads of the disrespectful Samaritans. When John encountered some strangers teaching in Jesus’ name, he promptly forbade them. But he was not the only one of the twelve who was tainted with this kind of self-esteem and superiority consciousness.

(1555.2) 139:4.9 John’s life was tremendously influenced by the sight of Jesus’ going about without a home as he knew how faithfully he had made provision for the care of his mother and family. John also deeply sympathized with Jesus because of his family’s failure to understand him, being aware that they were gradually withdrawing from him. This entire situation, together with Jesus’ ever deferring his slightest wish to the will of the Father in heaven and his daily life of implicit trust, made such a profound impression on John that it produced marked and permanent changes in his character, changes which manifested themselves throughout his entire subsequent life.

(1555.3) 139:4.10 John had a cool and daring courage which few of the other apostles possessed. He was the one apostle who followed right along with Jesus the night of his arrest and dared to accompany his Master into the very jaws of death. He was present and near at hand right up to the last earthly hour and was found faithfully carrying out his trust with regard to Jesus’ mother and ready to receive such additional instructions as might be given during the last moments of the Master’s mortal existence. One thing is certain, John was thoroughly dependable. John usually sat on Jesus’ right hand when the twelve were at meat. He was the first of the twelve really and fully to believe in the resurrection, and he was the first to recognize the Master when he came to them on the seashore after his resurrection.

(1555.4) 139:4.11 This son of Zebedee was very closely associated with Peter in the early activities of the Christian movement, becoming one of the chief supporters of the Jerusalem church. He was the right-hand support of Peter on the day of Pentecost.

(1555.5) 139:4.12 Several years after the martyrdom of James, John married his brother’s widow. The last twenty years of his life he was cared for by a loving granddaughter.

(1555.6) 139:4.13 John was in prison several times and was banished to the Isle of Patmos for a period of four years until another emperor came to power in Rome. Had not John been tactful and sagacious, he would undoubtedly have been killed as was his more outspoken brother James. As the years passed, John, together with James the Lord’s brother, learned to practice wise conciliation when they appeared before the civil magistrates. They found that a “soft answer turns away wrath.” They also learned to represent the church as a “spiritual brotherhood devoted to the social service of mankind” rather than as “the kingdom of heaven.” They taught loving service rather than ruling power — kingdom and king.

(1555.7) 139:4.14 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.

(1555.8) 139:4.15 John traveled much, labored incessantly, and after becoming bishop of the Asia churches, settled down at Ephesus. He directed his associate, Nathan, in the writing of the so-called “Gospel according to John,” at Ephesus, when he was ninety-nine years old. Of all the twelve apostles, John Zebedee eventually became the outstanding theologian. He died a natural death at Ephesus in A.D. 103 when he was one hundred and one years of age.

Hey even if you live in your parents house... you can still be a great apostle

Probably not. We don't really know too much about it; it's more a conjecture based on the similarities of language/theology in Joh and 1-3Joh, and the informations in Joh 21. In 2Joh and 3Joh have a few mentionings of "heretics" that should be rejected, but to take that to mean the things we usually associate with a mystery school (closed circle, secret body of 'knowledge' etc.) would be a stretch.

As I said - there are no known historical facts on this question one way or the other. We only have plausibility arguments and according to those, it's rather unlikely.

You'll have quite a steep hill to climb if you want to attempt to show that Rev and Joh were written by the same man.

Would you extend the same argument in the other direction as well? I.e. would you claim that biblical scholarship 300 years ago was better than today?

I"m more referring to the historical findings, more in an anthropological sense. If these findings were all that academia knew about the past then probably knowledge would be tenuous if the basis for this knowledge is these findings, sites, ancient letters, etc. If academia relates only to sense bound sources the road becomes longer. On the whole I'd say I spoke too broadly and am certainly not a prophet.

To contradict what I first said, the evolution of the individual human being will become more Christ apparent, within one's self. Christ knowledge, which also means and includes scientific knowledge will increase throughout humanity, in the future. The future is Christ laden which specifically means that the individual man will gain more self knowledge which is world knowledge.

Again, not a prophet even in hindsight, but I see the world of 300 years ago, through my lens, as a scattering of individuals who were able to see into the spiritual world, more so than today. The Age of Reason had begun and the scientific materialistic ethos was gaining full force, culminating in the 19th century of an materialism or exclusively sense bound activities. This was the period of the great scientific names that any high school student will recognize .

Our present times manifest this same materiality or exclusively sense bound activities but I'm hopeful that there are others on a more spiritual path; but then again this is the future in a present manifestation. Any change will come about through individual work and therefore I am looking.

I think one difficulty is that Yochanan mentions himself by name in Revelation whereas in the gospel bearing the same name uses the circumlocution, "the disciple whom Yeshua loved"; however, I and some others don't think that's enough to warrant discounting the traditional view held by the Church Fathers.

Here is an interesting article: http://www.blainerobison.com/endtimes/rev-intro.htm

What is more important is what does Revelation actually say, and what does it say that is important to humanity now ( and in the future )?

Any credence to the thought I have seen elsewhere that the stylistic, linguistic and grammatical differences that we see between the Gospel according to John and the book of Revelation is due to the fact that the apostle John, if he was indeed exiled to the Isle of Patmos for preaching too much in Jerusalem, wouldn't of had a scribe to write down his spoken thoughts as opposed to when he 'wrote' the Gospel and possibly had the aid of a scribe then?

Or, simply had two different scribes assisting him on both works, especially given the age that is suggested that he was when the book of Revelation was written if indeed it was him?

Conceivable, of course. But not very likely. For one, you're envisioning a process in which John, for either or both works, is basically giving his scribe a laundry list of talking points and lets him put that into sentences. Doesn't really jive with the importance of the content of either work.

For two, it's not just linguistical differences, but also notable differences in theology. Joh has a christology in which Father and Son are of equal status; Rev has the Son notably below the Father; Rev presupposes a vibrant christian life in a large number of different communities - Joh is utterly unconcerned with christian communities and the church; Joh has a presentic eschatology - Rev obv. looks into the future; Joh doesn't deal in the kind of chiliastic worldview that Rev has; Rev doesn't deal in the johannean dualisms. It would be difficult to ascribe those to the same person. You may write different things to different recipients, but you'd retain your general theological coordinate system.

For three, if you accepted such an argument, you're effectively gutting the entire question of historical authorships. If we accept that Joh and Rev could be "commisioned" by the same guy through different scribes, what's to keep us from pretending he also commissioned Mark and Mathew?

Finally, you just have to ask yourself: What do you gain? In effect, deciding this sort of question is like a zero-sum game, where there's "historical plausibility" on the one side and "<something>" on the other. If you ascribe both works to John, you shift some money from "plausibility" over to "<something>", presumably because you think it is "worth the cost".

The question is: Is it?

I've left the <something> unfilled on purpose. Because it's not immediately clear what should go there. Certainly not "theological/historical necessity" - it's entirely possible to maintain the importance/relevance of both works without having to posit identical authorship. So what else - "spiritual prettiness"? Sure, would be sort of cool if they were written by the same guy, but if not - so what.

In effect, that's the main problem: Unless you can suggest a really compelling reason for maintaining identity, you're simply investing a portion of historical credibility for some unspecified gain in <something>.