This book does not belong to John the son of Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century. Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various evidences.
First evidence: It is written as follows at the beginning of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John: 1-1) These words are of the subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other Gospels. If these words had been heard from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they would exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be explicated below.
Second evidence: The writings about the adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that those writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here and there; or someone after him added these verses. According to the first case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things. According to the second case, it must be admitted that this Gospel was interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin and does not deserve trust.
Third evidence: Some examples, occurances and miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such as Luazer’s coming back to life, the water’s changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this respect.
Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians, neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien, especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.
Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the narration of the events compiled in the other three Gospels is quite contrary to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other three Gospels Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharesees. He commands to purify the heart, to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ, to love people, to form beautiful habits, and prohibits inclinations contrary to the sharî’a of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural, and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. In this Gospel, hadrat Îsâ is represented as a person who has knowledge of Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta’âlâ and beautiful morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian schools. His statements, though thoroughly clear and plain in the other three Gospels, are ambiguous in this Gospel. It is full of well-organized iterations mostly with important double meanings and arranged in a singular way. The style used in John arouses one’s feelings of denial and hatred instead of alluring one’s heart. If this Gospel had appeared all of a sudden, recently, after having remained concealed somewhere, no one would believe it was written by one of the Apostles. Because it has been known for centuries, Christians cannot realize these oddities.
Sixth evidence: More mistakes are noticed in this Gospel. For instance, the fifty-first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John reads as follows: “And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” (John: 1-51) In actual fact, these words of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ took place after his baptism in the water of Erden and the descension of the Holy Spirit; after that no one saw the opening of the heaven or the descension of angels unto Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
The thirteenth verse of the third chapter of this Gospel states, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John: 3-13) This verse is wrong in several respects:
First; the part interpreted with the phrase ‘even’ was added afterwards. Thus the verse was changed. For the beginning part of the verse purported that “No one other than who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven”; but the author of the Gospel or one of its editors inserted an explanatory phrase in order to point out that mankind, i.e. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, is meant by this verse. Careful observation will show at once that this phrase is an addition. For when we separate the initial part of the verse from this explanatory phrase, its correct meaning, “No one other than the angels who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven,” will become clear. On the other hand, if it is insinuated that “It is mankind who descended from heaven,” the fact that hadrat Îsâ did not descend from heaven but was conceived by hadrat Maryam (Mary) through the Holy Spirit [the Archangel Jabrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’] will have been disavowed. Moreover, it will be necessary to reject that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was on earth and not in heaven as he said, “...Son of man which is in heaven...”. Furthermore, it is impossible for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to have uttered both expressions, i.e. “he that came down from heaven” and “which is in heaven”, at the same moment.
Second; the initial part of the verse is wrong, too. For it is stated in the twenty-fourth verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis and in the eleventh and twelfth verses of the second chapter of Kings II that Ahnûh (E’noch) and Ilyâ (E-li’sha) ‘alaihimus-salâm’ also ascended to heaven. There can be no doubt as to the fact that this verse has been interpolated.