یوحناوی کتابات کی تصنیف

یوحناوی کتابات کی تصنیف علما میں یوحناوی کتابات (یعنی انجیلِ یوحنا، یوحنا کے تین خطوط اور مکاشفۂ یوحنا) کی تصنیف کے بارے میں کم از کم تیسری صدی سے بحث جاری ہے۔^[1] جورج بیزلی-مرے کا کہنا ہے کہ: "اس کتاب (انجیل یوحنا) کے بارے میں ہم جو کچھ جاننا چاہتے ہیں وہ غیر یقینی ہے اور جو کچھ اس کے بارے میں معلوم ہوتا ہے وہ محلِ نزاع ہے۔"

بحث کا مرکزی نکتہ یہ ہے کہ آیا ان تمام تحریروں کو ایک ہی شخص نے قلم بند کیا اور اگر نہیں، تو ان کے مصنف یا مصنفین کی شناخت کیا ہے۔ قدیم کلیسائی روایت ان تمام تحریروں کو یوحنا بن زبدی سے منسوب کرتی ہے۔ جبکہ فیصلۂ گلاسیوس کے مطابق یوحنا دوم اور سوم خطوط کا مصنف ایک مختلف شخص ہے جسے "یوحنا بزرگ" (یا "یوحنا قس") کے نام سے جانا جاتا ہے۔ ^[2] .^[3]

مسیحی لبرل مفکرین اور سیکولر ماہرین پر مشتمل اعلیٰ تنقیدی مکتب فکر (Higher Criticism) عام طور پر یہ نظریہ مسترد کرتا ہے کہ یہ کتابیں یوحنا حواری نے لکھی تھیں۔ ان تحریروں کی تصنیف سے متعلق آرا مختلف ہیں: کچھ محققین ایک ہی مصنف کے قائل ہیں۔ بعض ایک سے زیادہ مصنفین کے نظریے کو درست سمجھتے ہیں۔ کچھ مفکرین اجتماعی تصنیف (collective authorship) کی تھیوری پیش کرتے ہیں۔^[2]^[4] .^[5]^[6]^[7]

آج کے بہت سے محققین اس بات پر متفق ہیں کہ مکاشفۂ یوحنا کا مصنف یوحنا بطمسی تھا، جس نے اسے غالباً 95ء کے لگ بھگ تحریر کیا۔ بعض اجزاء کا تعلق نیرون کی حکومت کے ابتدائی عشرے (60ء کی دہائی) سے بھی جوڑا جاتا ہے۔ تینوں خطوط کو اکثر محققین ایک ہی مصنف کا کام قرار دیتے ہیں، تاہم مصنف کی شناخت کے بارے میں اختلاف پایا جاتا ہے۔ کچھ اسکالرز کا دعویٰ ہے کہ ان کتابات کا ایک یا ایک سے زائد مصنفین ہیں، مگر وہ یوحنا بن زبدی نہیں تھے۔ دوسرے ماہرین کے مطابق خطوط اور انجیل کے مصنفین مختلف ہیں، لیکن ان سب کا تعلق ایک ہی یوحناوی جماعت سے تھا۔^[8]^[9]

روایتی طور پر سمجھا جاتا ہے کہ انجیل اور خطوط کا ماخذ افسس ہے اور ان کی تصنیف کا دور 90ء تا 110ء کے درمیان ہے، اگرچہ بعض محققین اس کا سوری ماخذ بھی تجویز کرتے ہیں۔ کئی جدید محققین اس بات پر زور دیتے ہیں کہ یوحنا بن زبدی نے ان میں سے کوئی بھی کتاب نہیں لکھی، تاہم دیگر محققین — خصوصاً جیٹ رابنسن، ایف ایف بروس، لیون مورس اور مارٹن ہینگل — اس موقف کے حامی ہیں کہ یوحنا بن زبدی نے کم از کم انجیل یوحنا ضرور لکھی۔^[10]^[11]

حوالہ جات

↑ George R. Beasley-Murray, John: Word Biblical Commentary Volume 36 Second Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), xxxii
1 2 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.
↑ Bart D. Ehrman (2004)۔ The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings۔ New York: Oxford۔ ص p.468۔ ISBN 0-19-515462-2 {{حوالہ کتاب}}: |صفحات= يحتوي على نص زائد (معاونت)
↑ Michael J. Kruger۔ My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا
↑ Raymond E. Brown۔ The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا
↑ I. Howard Marshall۔ The Epistles of John۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا
↑ "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
↑ Joseph F. Kelly (1 اکتوبر 2012)۔ History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts۔ Liturgical Press۔ ISBN:978-0-8146-5999-1۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا
↑
Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, سانچہ:ردمك, 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. آرکائیو شدہ 2014-06-21 بذریعہ وے بیک مشین
↑
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).

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

[Harris-2] 1 2 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] Bart D. Ehrman (2004)۔ The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings۔ New York: Oxford۔ ص p.468۔ ISBN 0-19-515462-2 {{حوالہ کتاب}}: |صفحات= يحتوي على نص زائد (معاونت)

[5] Michael J. Kruger۔ My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا

[6] Raymond E. Brown۔ The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا

[7] I. Howard Marshall۔ The Epistles of John۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا

[Fourth_Gospel_1985_p._355-8] "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

[Kelly2012-9] Joseph F. Kelly (1 اکتوبر 2012)۔ History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts۔ Liturgical Press۔ ISBN:978-0-8146-5999-1۔ 2018-11-17 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا

[Morris1995-10] Morris, Leon (1995) The Gospel According to John Volume 4 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, سانچہ:ردمك, 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. آرکائیو شدہ 2014-06-21 بذریعہ وے بیک مشین

[mwlQ] 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."

[mwnQ] 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."

[mwng] 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".

[mwnw] 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".

[mwoA] 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. آرکائیو شدہ 2014-06-21 بذریعہ وے بیک مشین

[Strobel,_Lee_1998-11] 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).

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

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

[mwrQ] 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]