Because of my study on John 1, BYU prof. Frank Judd Jr.’s recent paper on the traditional authorship of the Gospels sparked my interest. I wanted to see how he reponded to heart issues that I face in placing D&C 93 side by side John 1.

First an introduction to those that might not know Frank . . .

“Frank F. Judd Jr. is an assistant professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. He has M.A. degrees from Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina and a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, where he studied under noted New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman. He has published a number of articles on the New Testament, including “The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount” and “The Parables of Matthew 13: Revealing and Concealing the Kingdom of God.” He and his wife, Jill Judd, are the parents of four daughters.”

A recent book has been published, How The New Testament Came To Be (Copublished by the Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, and Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2006), edited by Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr.

Frank contributes the paper, “Who Really Wrote The Gospels? A Study of Traditional Authorship” for chapter ten (approximately 13 pages with 48 endnotes). With this paper being included in the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium on the BYU-Utah campus, October 27-28, 2006, I eagerly read Judd’s entry, hoping to gain a better perspective of LDS understanding over the intermingling of John 1 with the latter-day text, Doctrines and Covenant 93. I see a quagmire of quicksand, so I was very curious to see what ropes might be thrown to those still confused like me on this odd wedding.

First, let me commend Frank on his more careful and conservative approach for his LDS readers than perhaps Bart D. Ehrman. Though Frank slips in phrases like “anonymous compilers” using “oral recollections and previously written eyewitness accounts” (133) for Luke’s Gospel, he does not overtly proclaim that we have no way of really knowing original testimony—such a thesis would drive anyone to agnosticism. Yet interestingly, where Frank’s phrases do sound off big, clanging alarm bells for some conservative evangelicals, his choice of words fit quite nicely for Book of Mormon origination (128).

Also, Frank has no problem in acknowledging the beloved disciple as John, one of the twelve apostles, setting him apart from scads of “scholarly” skeptics. Likewise, it is a pleasant surprise to see Frank consulting with Irenaeus, E. Randolph Richards, and F. F. Bruce. And finally, Frank confirms, “even though there have been problems with translation and transmission of the Bible, Latter-day Saints still believe that the Bible is an inspired document.” Frank agrees with Neal Maxwell over the “powerful testimony and ample historicity of the New Testament . . . “(135).

The main purpose of Frank’s chapter is to “examine the evidence for traditional authorship of the Gospels in light of latter-day scripture and modern revelation” (124). Basically, he contends that the issues are “not that simple” (123) and “more complex than it may appear to some” (130). Frank suggests: that the Gospel of Mark could be called “the Gospel of Peter,” that the Gospel of Luke is sourced in the Gospel of Mark, that “anonymous Christians” wrote John’s Gospel, relying on “the testimony of John the Beloved and the writings of John the Baptist,” and that the Gospel of Luke also “used previously written material” and possibly the Gospel of Mark (132-134). Frank concludes, “We believe traditional authorship as far as it has been handed down to us correctly. We also understand that the issue of who wrote a biblical book is not as important as the truth that the book contains. . . the issue of the authorship of books of the Bible should not affect the way we feel about the inspiration of those books. Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels are inspired, even if they used oral or previously written sources and even if the scribes rather than the apostolic sources received the credits for writing them. John’s and Matthew’s Gospels are inspired, even if these Apostles only personally witnessed some of the events included in these Gospels and even if they utilized other early Christians to compile, edit, and write down these recollections” (135).

My primary interest is what Frank says about John’s Gospel. I believe that Irenaeus’ testimony in A.D. 200 is compelling—the belief that John the Beloved Disciple did write the Gospel while in the city of Ephesus.

Though fully aware and in agreement with what Frank says about Romans and Galatians, the idea that John 21:24 is “another parenthetical comment by the editors of John’s Gospel” should be emphasized as nothing more than educated speculation. A remote possibility is there, but there is no amanuensis spoken of like Tertius (131) for the letter to the Romans. The interpretation of “we” is difficult, which I conclude to be the apostolic church acting as a serious and necessary witness to the apostle’s record. It is best to say this about verse 24, “The most natural meaning of these words, and therefore the meaning to be adopted unless very strong reasons are brought up against it, is that the disciple himself not only bore witness to but also wrote down tauta (‘these things’)” (Barrett).

The most extraordinary hypothesis by Frank is thus: “A comparison of John 1 with Doctrine and Covenants 93 suggests that the initial part of chapter 1 of John’s Gospel actually came from the writings of John the Baptist. The language of Doctrine and Covenants 93:6-18 is very similar to that found in John 1:1-18” (127).

When Frank questions his readers after quoting D&C 93:6, “Which John is this referring to?” there was no doubt in mind. But then after quoting John 1:32-34, Frank postulates, “Thus, John the Baptist also made a written record, a portion of which was used in the Gospel of John.”

When Robert L. Millet writes, “It would be natural, of course, for John to quote from John the Baptist” (137n17), I have no disagreement with this. I see it with my eyes in John 1. But Bruce R. McConkie states absolutely, “From latter-day revelation we learn that the material in the forepart of the gospel of John (the Apostle, Revelator, and Beloved Disciple) was written originally by John the Baptist. By revelation the Lord restored to Joseph Smith part of what John the Baptist had written and promised to reveal the balance when men became sufficiently faithful to warrant receiving it” (137n18).

What a minute. What latter-day revelation confirms the idea of written material by John the Baptist? I am drawing a blank. Is it the English word, “record”? “Record” and “witness” are two English synonyms for martyria. And thinking of the endnote containing Bruce’s statement, doesn’t John 1 contain information, so vital about God it’s repeated, yet woefully absent from both the BoM Lehi’s predictions in 600 B.C. and Joseph Smith’s revelation on May 6, 1833, almost 2500 years later?

Are there any other contemporary LDS links that I can follow on the topic about John the Baptist’s written records?

[side note – Frank highly favors the Gospel of Mark to be taken from the testimony of Peter. His reason is Papias’ writings, taken from Eusebius–The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999) by Paul L. Maier. Just curious. I am assuming Frank wouldn’t accept Papias’ testimony to the authorship of John. So why Mark?

Of course, Paul Maier scorns Papias, “a man of very limited intelligence” (129), for his millennial views which perhaps both Frank and I see in eschatology.]