The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

Splendour

We read in John 13 & John 21 of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' yet no identification is given.

John 13:

' 21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.”

22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.” '


John 21:

' 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” '


It is commonly believed that John (author of Gospel of John) was this disciple but as there is no mention of his name can anyone enlighten me as to where this thinking came from?
If the beloved disciple referred to is John, would it not be a tad bit egotistical of John to mention this in his writings-or perhaps even a bit presumptuous?

Fanny Cradock

There is a shift in NT studies towards the belief that the Gospel of John is an eyewitness report from John the Evangelist/ Apostle, also known as John son of Zebadee. If you want to know more about this then perhaps you should look into the fascinating book Jesus and the eyewitnesses (Bauckham) which attempts to show that the disciples (including John) stayed within the relatively small Christian community as authoritative living sources of their Gospel. Whereas before it had often been assumed (and still is by people like Ehrman) that the Gospels were spread by a method analogous to Chinese whispers. For a less academic slant, Rowan Williams gives a really interesting and accessible sermon/ talk on the Gospel of John here. He rattles through the early history (authorship, dates, etc.) and the major themes in the Gospel in about an hour or so.

I'm inclined to agree with both Williams and Bauckham - that the Gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness account (example) and that tradition has it right insofar as it was written by John the Evangelist.

PDN

Ben Witherington, a noted conservative biblical scholar, makes a compelling argument for the beloved disciple being Lazarus http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html

Keylem

"John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27). After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ had truly risen (John 20:2-10). When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John 21:7). The Fourth Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to indicate himself without giving his name: "the disciple whom Jesus loved".


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

"John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27). After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ had truly risen (John 20:2-10). When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John 21:7). The Fourth Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to indicate himself without giving his name: "the disciple whom Jesus loved".


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

You've made a case for the disciple who loved Jesus. The thread concerns the disciple who Jesus loved however.

Quo Vadis

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've made a case for the disciple who loved Jesus. The thread concerns the disciple who Jesus loved however.

What's your take on it anti ?

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What's your take on it anti ?

PDN's link seems to make a reasonable enough case.

Keylem

Perhaps John's loyalty at the cross would be one reason, and the fact the Jesus entrusted the care of His Mother to John would be another! John was the first of the disciples that Jesus called and was the only disciple to have died naturally and not martyred as the others did!

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

Perhaps John's loyalty at the cross would be one reason, and the fact the Jesus entrusted the care of His Mother to John would be another!

The person at the foot of the cross is described in John 19 as the disciple Jesus loved. How do you know it's John?

John was the first of the disciples that Jesus called and was the only disciple to have died naturally and not martyred as the others did!

In other words, he was the last disciple to enter the presence of his Lord and Master. A doubtful honour (since you figure the first to be the position of honour)

Keylem

antiskeptic wrote: »

The person at the foot of the cross is described in John 19 as the disciple Jesus loved. How do you know it's John?





In other words, he was the last disciple to enter the presence of his Lord and Master. A doubtful honour (since you figure the first to be the position of honour)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

That is the source of the statement I was querying..

"John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27)."


It's not an explanation as to how the statement is arrived at.

Keylem

The CC does not refer to scripture alone but also Tradition!!

Asry

Reading the article now, PDN. I've never heard that hypothesis before. I remember the first time I stumbled across the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in the bible and was like.....I'm sorry, what?:rolleyes:

Asry

Oooohh, I dunno about that article by Ben Witherington that states a case for the Beloved Disciple being Lazarus. It seems to make a large leap right at the crucial point:

At John 13.23 we have the by now very familiar reference to a disciple whom Jesus loved (hon agapa this time) as reclining on the bosom of Jesus, by which is meant he is reclining on the same couch as Jesus. The disciple is not named here, and notice that nowhere in John 13 is it said that this meal transpired in Jerusalem. It could just as well have transpired in the nearby town of Bethany and this need not even be an account of the Passover meal. Jn. 13.1 in fact says it was a meal that transpired before the Passover meal. This brings us to a crucial juncture in this discussion. In Jn. 11 there was a reference to a beloved disciple named Lazarus. In Jn. 12 there was a mention of a meal at the house of Lazarus. If someone was hearing these tales in this order without access to the Synoptic Gospels it would be natural to conclude that the person reclining with Jesus in Jn. 13 was Lazarus. There is another good reason to do so as well. It was the custom in this sort of dining that the host would recline with or next to the chief guest. The story as we have it told in Jn. 13 likely implies that the Beloved Disciple is the host then. But this in turn means he must have a house in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This in turn probably eliminates all the Galilean disciples.

But I like the following argument, very neat altogether:

of course the old problem of the fact that the Synoptics say all the Twelve deserted Jesus once he was taken away for execution, even Peter, and record only women being at the cross, is not contradicted by the account in Jn. 19 if in fact the Beloved Disciple, while clearly enough from Jn. 19.26 a man (-- called Mary’s ‘son’, and so not Mary Magdalene!) is Lazarus rather than one of the Twelve.

There is, however, John 21.:22-25, which is a passage that's always puzzled me.

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Witherington argues this:

But now he has passed away and this has caused anxiety among the faithful about what was the case with the BD and what Jesus had actually said about his future in A.D. 30. I would suggest that no solution better explains all the interesting factors in play here than the suggestion that the Beloved Disciple was someone that Jesus had raised from the dead, and so quite naturally there arose a belief that surely he would not die again, before Jesus returned. Such a line of thought makes perfectly good sense if the Beloved Disciple had already died once and the second coming was still something eagerly anticipated when he died. Thus I submit that the theory that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple and the author of most of the traditions in this Gospel is a theory which best clears up the conundrum of the end of the Appendix written after his death.

....Now there's lots to think about.

Do you ever wish you could go back in time and see everything as it actually really happened? It would clear up a lot of puzzlings, for me anyways!

Splendour

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is a shift in NT studies towards the belief that the Gospel of John is an eyewitness report from John the Evangelist/ Apostle, also known as John son of Zebadee. If you want to know more about this then perhaps you should look into the fascinating book Jesus and the eyewitnesses (Bauckham) which attempts to show that the disciples (including John) stayed within the relatively small Christian community as authoritative living sources of their Gospel. Whereas before it had often been assumed (and still is by people like Ehrman) that the Gospels were spread by a method analogous to Chinese whispers. For a less academic slant, Rowan Williams gives a really interesting and accessible sermon/ talk on the Gospel of John here. He rattles through the early history (authorship, dates, etc.) and the major themes in the Gospel in about an hour or so.

I'm inclined to agree with both Williams and Bauckham - that the Gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness account (example) and that tradition has it right insofar as it was written by John the Evangelist.

Thanks Fanny but am more interested in who the 'Beloved Disciple' was than who actually wrote John's gospel.

Fanny Cradock

Splendour wrote: »

Thanks Fanny but am more interested in who the 'Beloved Disciple' was than who actually wrote John's gospel.

Sorry, I obviously didn't specify it clearly enough. John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel. I think that people like Bauckham make a good case for this. Rownan Williams in the link (just a few minutes in) gives a very brief case as to why he thinks along the same lines.

But even if it wasn't his hand who actually penned the Gospel (say it was a disciple of his, a Christian friend or whoever) the important point is that in the small Christian community John remind as the ultimate authoritative check and balance to anyone penning his Gospel. Perhaps this would be something like an authorised biography. However, I don't think you need to go this far. I think that we can leave it that the Apostle John wrote John. Still, I must read the Ben Witherington link.

Onesimus

Read John:21:20-25.

It is clear that St.John speaking in the third person here ( humility ) wrote the Gospel.

Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Asry

....why would he do that? It reads as having been tacked on, like. Obviously though I would have no way of knowing that :rolleyes:

GotScripture

Splendour wrote: »

If the beloved disciple referred to is John, would it not be a tad bit egotistical of John to mention this in his writings-or perhaps even a bit presumptuous?

One has to take off their own shoes before they can take a walk in someone else's moccasins, and similarly, when it comes to a case of The Bible vs. Tradition, one has to let go of the traditions of men in order to see the truth that is hidden in plain sight in the text of scripture.

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free eBook that compares scripture with scripture in order to highlight the facts in the plain text of scripture that are usually overlooked about the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”. You may want to weigh the testimony of scripture that the study cites regarding the one whom “Jesus loved” and may find it to be helpful as it encourages bible students to take seriously the admonition “prove all things”.

Parroting the traditions of men is a far cry from the method of the Bereans who searched the scriptures to see concerning the things that they were taught. And one thing is for sure, the promoters of the John idea do not want Bible students searching the scripture on this question becaue the John idea cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny.

Whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was NOT John -- because that unbiblical tradition of men forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do.

GotScripture

PS - Noticed a logical fallacy in this statement which supposed a false dichotomy:

Splendour wrote: »

...am more interested in who the 'Beloved Disciple' was than who actually wrote John's gospel.

Whatever gave you the idea that these were two different people?

The Bible says: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things” (Fourth gospel 21:24) and the context makes it clear he is the same one referred to as “that disciple” in v. 23 and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in v. 20. So, according to scripture, one cannot separate the two.

While you apparently think the 'Beloved Disciple' and the unnamed author of the fourth gospel are two different people, in fact, these are merely two different ways of referring to the same person. Therefore, if you identify one, then you identify the other (because they are one in the same).

Asry

GotScripture wrote: »

Whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was NOT John -- because that unbiblical tradition of men forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do.

This is worded strangely to my mind/ears/eyes. What do you mean, in smaller words? Preferably with a powerpoint presentation, and if not, at least sketches.

GotScripture

GotScripture wrote: »

Whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was NOT John -- because that unbiblical tradition of men forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do.

Asry wrote: »

This is worded strangely to my mind/ears/eyes. What do you mean...

For Asry or anyone else who would like a flowchart, the logic works like this:

(A) Truth cannot contradict itself.
(B) The facts recorded in scripture about the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" are true.
(C) The facts recorded in scripture about John are true.
(D) There are facts about John and the unnamed "other disciple" that are mutually exclusive.
(E) Therefore, John cannot be the beloved disciple, for that would make the Bible contradict itself.

As was stated earlier, whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he was NOT John. That is why no one who promotes the John idea can cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. But while it is bad enough that people will present an idea AS IF IT WAS BIBLICAL when they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea, even worse, is a willingness to turn a blind eye to facts in scripture that can prove us to be wrong.

Those who would like to weigh the biblical evidence that proves John was not the beloved disciple (the unnamed author of the fourth gospel) can find it at the link was provided in post #19 above.

"Scripture is profitable for correction" and, therefore, those who love the truth should invite the correction that God's word has to offer on any issue - even the issue of the beloved disciple.

GotScripture

Splendour wrote: »

If the beloved disciple referred to is John, would it not be a tad bit egotistical of John to mention this in his writings-or perhaps even a bit presumptuous?

Splendour, Some follow up thoughts for you to consider. It is funny that you raise the charge that the label "the disciple whom Jesus loved" seems "egotistical" because those who promote the idea that this unnamed disciple was John try to convince everyone of just the opposite, for the typical excuse is that using this label was simply John's way of being humble.

Two things are true. One, your use of the term "in his writings" is completely unbiblical. There are NO "writings" plural in the Bible where John or anyone else is referred to as the one whom "Jesus loved". That term appears only one place in scripture - in the fourth gospel, where the anonymous author uses terms like "the disciple whom Jesus loved", "other disciple", "other disciple, whom Jesus loved", etc. to conceal his identity while referring to himself.

In this regard he acts just the opposite of the way that we see John writing in the Book of Revelation, where he openly and repeatedly identifies himself by name and where he NEVER identifies himself as the one whom "Jesus loved." This of course exposes one of the MULTITUDE of problems for those who promote the idea that John was the author of the fourth gospel.

The hand-me-down notion commonly expressed is 'John didn't use his name in the gospel because he was being humble'. The trouble is that this ridiculous excuse would mean that when authors like James and Paul were openly identified in their writings that they were not being very humble, but that of course was not the case. Moreover, it would mean John who REPEATEDLY identified himself in the Book of Revelation was being more prideful when he wrote that book and splashed his name all over it. But this, too, is not the case.

So, as is the case time and again IN SCRIPTURE, we find John and the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" behaving differently - they write and act like two different people, because they were. (More such contrasts in the biblical evidence is presented in the case study previously cited in post 19.)

Second, regarding the charge of "egotistical". When the apostles argue about who would get the chief seats in the kingdom THAT is "egotistical", but notice the indication is they all act as if they think they have an equal claim on the chief seats. They NEVER act as if THEY think John has a unique relationship with Jesus. Furthermore, when James and John try to get themselves the seats on the right and the left of Jesus we are explicitly told, “when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with James and John” (Mk. 10:41). Clearly, it was not humbleness on the part of John and his brother that caused this indignation among the remainder of “the twelve”! Rather, it was a lack thereof. And, here again, the reaction of the rest of the apostles does NOT indicate that they believed John's relationship with Jesus was unique - i.e, THEY do not act as if John was the one whom "Jesus loved".

So, prior to Pentecost, we do see ego being in play. But it is wrong to assume that the label "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is in itself necessarily egotistical. That is a false assumption. Just as when Moses writes that he was the meekest of men, Moses was not bragging, he was merely reporting a true fact. And the same is true with the anonymous author of the fourth gospel.

Asry

GotScripture wrote: »

(A) Truth cannot contradict itself.
(B) The facts recorded in scripture about the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" are true.
(C) The facts recorded in scripture about John are true.
(D) There are facts about John and the unnamed "other disciple" that are mutually exclusive.
(E) Therefore, John cannot be the beloved disciple, for that would make the Bible contradict itself.

Yep that makes complete sense.

Fanny Cradock

GotScripture wrote: »

For Asry or anyone else who would like a flowchart, the logic works like this:

(A) Truth cannot contradict itself.
(B) The facts recorded in scripture about the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" are true.
(C) The facts recorded in scripture about John are true.
(D) There are facts about John and the unnamed "other disciple" that are mutually exclusive.
(E) Therefore, John cannot be the beloved disciple, for that would make the Bible contradict itself.

Can you elaborate on premise D?

GotScripture

Fanny,

Before responding, I'd like to ask for the biblical justification for your prior comment in post 16:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel.

Really? Then a reasonable question would be, What biblical evidence would lead you to make such a statement? You state this dogmatically, as if you have investigated this claim and know it to be biblically accurate and, if you have done so, then if you would be so kind as to cite just one verse of scripture that would justify making this statement, that would be helpful.

Immediately after that statement you added:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that people like Bauckham make a good case for this.

But instead of citing this-or-that personality, please cite the evidence. What other people may believe is not evidence. Furthermore, scripture says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" (Ps. 118:8). So, if any source you have read has been able to cite a single verse of scripture that convinced you John was the beloved disciple, then please quote it on this thread.

Conversely, however, if none of them has ever offered a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching the John idea, but they were merely parroting the opinions of men found in this-or-that non-Bible source, then how would it show respect for God's word for Bible students to trust in those non-Bible sources? (Especially, given we are told not to add to God's word and surely that warns against adding the traditions of men to God's word when we represent it.) Surely if our biblical understanding is based on non-Bible sources and what some personality said they believe (even if they have a PhD), then we have built our foundation on shifting sand.

While this forum is not the place for a full on study of the topic, if you can cite of a single verse of scripture to justify making the statement, 'John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel' that scripture quote would no doubt be appreciated by the readers of this thread.

GotScripture

A challenge in the case of The Bible vs. Tradition...

In scripture we see the admonition "prove all things" and we also see the Bereans praised who "searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so". So. here is a straightforward Bible challenge for all those who have a love of the truth: Read the fourth gospel from beginning to end with an eye to answering this one question for yourself, Who would I conclude the author was based on just the words that he himself wrote?

Then come back to this thread and report your conclusion, along with reporting some of the key facts his gospel which lead you to that conclusion.

Note: Those who do this will never come to the conclusion the author was John because none of the evidence points toward John. (Instead, the author's use of various anonymous terms and the other facts he reveals about himself in context will actually identify him as someone else.)

Do the author's own words and the evidence recorded in the plain text of scripture support the idea that this unnamed author was John? No it does not. In fact, it proves just the opposite.

Still, those who are wedded to the man-made John tradition will kick against the goads and try various means to change the subject because, as noted, they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching the idea the beloved disciple was John. Since that tradition cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny, they have to change the subject and/or get people to trust in non-Bible sources because the light of scripture shows the John idea to be a false teaching.

But when you see the defenders of the John tradition turn a blind eye to the facts in the plain text of scripture and, instead, rush to point people away from God's word and urge them to trust in this-or-that non-Bible source, then realize that in itself is a big red flag.

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Pr. 30:5-6).

Fanny Cradock

GotScripture wrote: »

Fanny,

Before responding, I'd like to ask for the biblical justification for your prior comment in post 16: Really? Then a reasonable question would be, What biblical evidence would lead you to make such a statement? You state this dogmatically, as if you have investigated this claim and know it to be biblically accurate and, if you have done so, then if you would be so kind as to cite just one verse of scripture that would justify making this statement, that would be helpful.

There is no "Biblical justification" for the authorship of John. Therefore, I look for evidence outside the text.

GotScripture wrote: »

Immediately after that statement you added:But instead of citing this-or-that personality, please cite the evidence. What other people may believe is not evidence. Furthermore, scripture says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" (Ps. 118:8). So, if any source you have read has been able to cite a single verse of scripture that convinced you John was the beloved disciple, then please quote it on this thread.

Ironic! I didn't cite personalities. I cited a thesis put forward by two different people. That they happen to be known in Christian circles (and one would hope that Rowan Williams is known by name outside Christian circles) should be entirely separate to the validity of the thesis they put forth. You can buy the book, listen to the link or do a search online anbd actually engage with the arguments.

GotScripture wrote: »

While this forum is not the place for a full on study of the topic, if you can cite of a single verse of scripture to justify making the statement, 'John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel' that scripture quote would no doubt be appreciated by the readers of this thread.

Stop being silly. I've already said that no such verse exists. Now how about you lay off the snide comments and answer my question. All I've seen so far is vague appeals to "the evidence" without any mention of what you are talking about.

How do you support premise D? What mutually exclusive facts are you talking about? These aren't trick questions.

GotScripture

So your standard for making a truth claim about something regarding the word of God is it is okay to present statements about a biblical topic AS IF they were biblically true even when you yourself say there is no biblical justification for doing so…

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is no "Biblical justification" for the authorship of John.

First, you do err because you know not the scriptures and, instead of looking to the word of God for data with which to make a judgment on this issue, you put your trust in non-Bible sources, as you put it you look "outside the text". This is despite the fact that NUMEROUS passages of scripture let us know that it is not safe for one to assume they can base their understanding of God's word on what others (even religious leaders and teachers) say the word of God says.

You look "outside the text" but scripture says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" (Ps. 118:8). So, it is better for Bible students to look INSIDE the text like the Bereans of Acts 17:11. They "searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" -- and their teacher was Paul himself! Therefore, the idea that we should lower that standard (i.e. skip that "search the scriptures" stuff) when it comes to things said by teachers today makes no sense at all. But the issue of Bible study method is in fact the key issue in this whole discussion. Those who choose to look "outside the text" will conclude the one whom "Jesus loved" was whoever the source they trust says this was (and a Google of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" will show there are MANY such thesis candidates John, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Judas (yes, believe it or not, there are people who promote this thesis also), etc.) Those who rely on the Bible ONLY will NECESSARILY come to the conclusion that NONE of them can be the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" because NONE of them fit with ALL of the many facts that scripture tells us about this unnamed author of the fourth gospel.

Of course, one can find a non-Bible source saying just about anything. So those who are willing to substitute their preferred non-Bible source for the authority of God's word on any given issue are, in fact, giving themselves license to pick-and-choose when they will rely on the Bible says and when they will rely on what someone else says the Bible says. Hardly a God-honoring way to approach scripture or to show respect for the authority of God's word. (Sadly, so many are willing to pronounce this-or-that idea as true on various Bible topics when they, too, cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching those ideas; and they, too, feel it is okay to do so because their trust in their preferred non-Bible source convinces them no biblical justification is needed. This is the state of so much "church" teaching today and it is why an endless number of "churches" that all claim the same Bible in many cases will end up teaching mutually exclusive ideas on a wide variety of Bible passages/biblical issues. )

You say, John the apostle wrote the gospel, but that is a false statement. Whether you like it or not and whether you are in ignorance of the biblical facts that DO prove that statement to be false, the plain text of scripture is a better source of information on this subject than your preferred non-Bible sources that never offered a "biblical justification" for the belief you so dogmatically declare. (Still in any case, NO amount of thesis/opinion/belief expressed by non-Bible sources can trump the testimony of scripture.)

There is certainly no biblical justification for teaching the John idea, that is true. But for anyone to assert scripture has no information on this topic that (A) can disprove the John idea or (B) is able to provide Bible students with important material facts about the identity of the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved", merely reveals their ignorance of the facts preserved for us in the inspired word of God.

Given your declarations on this topic, the real question at this point is, IF you were presented with BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that disproved the John idea (the aforementioned mutually exclusive facts about John and the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved"), would you retract your earlier statements and give up the false John idea that you have adopted from looking "outside the text"? This is the question for everyone who believes the John tradition.

I would hope the answer is yes, but many people who claim they trust God's word still cling to many false teachings on many topics -- even after they have been shown facts in scripture that reveal those ideas are unbiblical. So if you want to change the subject, by more name-calling or other tactics, you would not be the first to choose tradition over the light of scripture. The choice is yours.

As for the mutually exclusive facts you asked for (while also declaring there is no "Biblical justification" regarding the authorship issue), given your prior post, it seems best at this point to quote you to you:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You can buy the book, listen to the link… and actually engage with the arguments.

Three times I referenced the presentation of biblical evidence (with the only source data being quotes from scripture, no non-Bible sources, no follow the leader, no hand-me-down traditions substituted for the authority of God's word -- just comparing scripture with scripture) that disproves the John tradition. The link provided in post 16 with additional mentions in 21 & 22, but I apologize if it wasn't clear enough and as it may have been easy to overlook those mentions, here it is again...

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com - and it is free online, so there is actually no need to "buy the book", but anyone interested can, as you put it, "actually engage with the arguments", if they choose to do so.

The biblical evidence offered in the study proves beyond a reasonable doubt John cannot have been the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved". It does so by contrasting the facts in scripture about John with the facts in scripture about the one "whom Jesus loved" and by doing that the facts in scripture are able to prove the unnamed author of the fourth gospel cannot have been John.

Of course, an impartial fair-minded jury is always best. But since you have already made up your mind before hearing the evidence that no biblical evidence against the John tradition can possibly exist, you will have to be careful to not let your bias for the John tradition distort your weighing of the facts if you intend to honestly weigh the biblical evidence against the John tradition as an impartial jury.

If you chose to "engage with" biblical evidence, then I look forward to hearing your verdict. Again, "scripture is profitable for correction" and that is true even the issue is the question of the authorship of the fourth gospel/the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved". But if you chose not to "engage with" biblical evidence that could disprove the John tradition, so be it, and we can leave it at that.

I'll finish with some words of biblical encouragement:

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2Ti. 2:15a).

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1Th. 5:21).

Fanny Cradock

I think there is no point in further discussing this topic with you. The manner in how you approached this discussion serves to shut it down. You aren't interested in debating the topic. You want too tell me how wrong I am.

But it is notable that contained within the 100's of words you have typed, and amid all the claims to proof, you haven't actually made a positive case for your argument. Rather, you have generalised about me and made an attack on the thesis that John wrote John that is so broad as to be meaningless. I never stated outright that what I believe to be the case was absolutely correct. Indeed, I have already indicated that I am willing to consider the argument PDN posted from Ben Witherington regarding authorship. Incidentally, Witherington is gracious enough to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong.

Again, I find a rich irony present when I compare the attitude you have displayed in our interactions (aggressive, insulting and absolutist) with your claim that I am being closed-minded.

Given your declarations on this topic, the real question at this point is, IF you were presented with BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that disproved the John idea (the aforementioned mutually exclusive facts about John and the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved"), would you retract your earlier statements and give up the false John idea that you have adopted from looking "outside the text"? This is the question for everyone who believes the John tradition.

This is just outright silliness. If I know something to be untrue then of course I am not going to believe in it. If the evidence points to Lazarus then it points to Lazarus. Your question is meaningless and it suggests to me that you are implying that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is being intellectually dishonest.

Of course, an impartial fair-minded jury is always best. But since you have already made up your mind before hearing the evidence that no biblical evidence against the John tradition can possibly exist, you will have to be careful to not let your bias for the John tradition distort your weighing of the facts if you intend to honestly weigh the biblical evidence against the John tradition as an impartial jury.

Are you confusing me with somebody else? Or do you have a script you work from when pontificating to anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as yourself? I've never proclaimed that I was right; I actually said that I am willing to consider alternative views. You are the one making absolute claims (when you can't be sure if they are true) and dismissing anything opposed to this view as the mutterings of "personalities".

I you chose to "engage with" biblical evidence, then I look forward to hearing your verdict. Again, "scripture is profitable for correction" and that is true even the issue is the question of the authorship of the fourth gospel/the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved". But if you chose not to "engage with" biblical evidence that could disprove the John tradition, so be it, and we can leave it at that.

Allow me to paraphrase that! "If you agree with me then you are engaging with Biblical evidence. If you don't agree with me then you aren't."

Let's leave it there.

GotScripture

I agree we should refrain from future discussion, but your parting shot needs correction on two points. One, you're good at name calling yet you fail to see a problem with making contradictory statements…

Statement A:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've never proclaimed that I was right

Statement B:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is no "Biblical justification" for the authorship of John.

FYI, statement A contradicts the truth claim you made in statement B.

Note: your proclamation which purports to out the possibility of any biblical justification on the subject of the authorship of the gospel is a truth claim. You present the statement AS IF it was true, i.e, as a statement of fact. So, of course, you claimed to be right, just as you asserted you were right when you made that other (false) truth claim…

Statement C:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

John the Apostle wrote John's Gospel.

But you need to spin this as an attack on the messenger, because biblical evidence that would prove John cannot possibly be "the disciple whom Jesus loved" would (1) prove you were wrong when you made statements B & C and (2) you would actually have to admit your method of making truth claims about biblical issues based on looking "outside of the text" undermines the authority of scripture.

And to answer your comical question, no I did not 'have you confused with anybody else'. However, it is also clear that rather than go and investigate the possibility that there IS biblical justification for proving that the author was NOT John (which would show that you were not "right" when you claimed that no such justification exists), you preferred to pretend that sharing a presentation of biblical evidence that would prove you wrong is best characterized as a personal attack.

It's not about you. It IS about the truth and you're the one who has made FALSE statements and made claims about scripture that have NO biblical justification. Anyone reading this tread is able to evaluate the statements in my posts. If they find where I have made a false statement or have made a statement that makes a truth claim about scripture that is false, then I invite their biblical correction.

Second, I must add one other note of correction on that utterly dreadful mischaracterization…

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"If you agree with me then you are engaging with Biblical evidence. If you don't agree with me then you aren't."

While that paraphrase may salve your conscience for ignoring the biblical evidence that WAS offered, it is totally false since 'agreement with me' was never the challenge that was put forth. Agreement with the biblical evidence was clearly and consistently the standard in EVERY post that I have made. If you or anyone else, including me, holds a belief or makes statements about scripture that are non justified by scripture then we have no business representing those ideas a truth claims in a biblical discussion.

The true paraphrase would in fact be this - "To agree with scripture and point people to the biblical text, is to engage with biblical evidence. To ignore the biblical evidence an d make truth claims on Bible issues because some source "outside the text" says 'x', is not engaging with the biblical evidence."

The readers of this thread can judge for themselves which of the two characterizations is more accurate.

With that, Fanny, I am willing to let it suffice to say the words we find repeated in scripture when people had a disagreement on a matter, "The Lord judge between me and thee".

GotScripture

Again, for the readers of this thread, the issue of authority is ultimately what underlies the discussion of the topic of the identity of the author of the fourth gospel. If one decides to put their trust this-or-that non-Bible source, then if that source says John wrote the gospel then the person will believe that is true even if they are offered no biblical justification for that idea.

Every investigator knows that the primary source is always the best evidence. Moreover, it is should truly be self-evident that the prime source on biblical issues is the text of scripture. The method of repeating what this-or-that teacher says without every searching the scriptures to see if what was said is biblically justified or not, is to set aside the primary source and make hearsay, thesis, consensus, etc. the authority.

The authority of God's word - better choice. That IS a truth claim, i.e., a claim to be right. However, it is not correct to act as if that is merely 'my opinion'. Rather, that is the clear declaration of God's word itself throughout the whole scripture. Conclusion, the Bible should be our source on biblical issues.

The issue is ultimately not the authorship of the fourth gospel. The issue is where one turns to for the data which they use to inform their beliefs on the issue. (And this is true when it comes to every issue.) And the presentation of biblical evidence that was referred to in post 16 is a very practical case study in why looking to Bible first and foremost is the better than trusting in non-Bible sources.

The question for readers of this thread in the first instance is, If there is not a single verse of scripture which would justify teaching the John idea, then why would you believe that idea? At the very least, respect for the authority of God's word should prompt those who love the truth to wonder why every defender of the John idea has to point to a non-Bible source when they attempt to justify their belief. No matter what the question, topic or issue is, when it comes to discussions of biblical issues , if one is willing to promote an idea as if that idea was TRUE (i.e., the idea is presented as a statement of fact, not as a hypothesis) when that person does not have a single verse that would justify teaching that idea, then that right there tells you what their authority is on that issue. It is not God's word. And if you find a teacher of scripture engaging in this practice on one issue, the will be willing to apply that same method of truth seeking when it comes to other issues as well. So, as the old saying goes, Consider the source.

Bob Cratchet

I know the following quote is from wiki, but it does quote all its sources for this summary, and is often a useful barometer.

According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.[20][21][22] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century

Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

As the early church fathers lived within two generations of the apostles, and John the apostle was likely the only apostle that lived to be a ripe old age, I still think the original and earliest understanding of the author is a distinct possibility. Occam’s razor wins this one for me.

Either way it’s a beautiful Gospel.

GotScripture

Bob, The blended wisdom of wikipedia notwithstanding, Bible students would do better to base their biblical understanding on what the Bible says.

The author wrote, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things". We don’t have to believe those words, but if one thinks the other words of his gospel are true then why would they toss aside this claim of authorship just because someone else does so?

Bob Cratchet

GotScripture wrote: »

Bob, The blended wisdom of wikipedia notwithstanding, Bible students would do better to base their biblical understanding on what the Bible says.

The author wrote, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things". We don’t have to believe those words, but if one thinks the other words of his gospel are true then why would they toss aside this claim of authorship just because someone else does so?

Using that hypothesis, why was it not called the Gospel according to Lazarus ?

Given he was it’s true author as you claim, there should have been no issue in calling the book by its true name ?

Fanny Cradock

GotScripture wrote: »

I agree we should refrain from future discussion, but your parting shot needs correction on two points. One, you're good at name calling yet you fail to see a problem with making contradictory statements…

It's fun to rip statements out of their context and slap 'em together. Yay!

GotScripture

Bob,

You quoted my post 34 and then said "Using that hypothesis..." but what are you calling "that hypothesis?

You had quoted wikipedia claims that attacked the gospel's explicit authorship claim.

I quoted scripture in response to your wiki quote and said Bible students would do better to base their biblical understanding on what the Bible says.

I also suggested those who are seeking the truth cannot take a pick-and-choose approach to scripture and that, therefore, if one is going to say the gospel presents truth, then they would also have to take the gospel's explicit authorship claim at face value.

So, what specifically are you referring to as "that hypothesis"?

Again, the gospel says, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things". So that is not MY claim. That is the claim of the anonymous author and either that statement is true or it is not true.

If it is true, then all that wikipedia non-eyewitness, gospel by committee, three part layer authorship nonsense is false.

If the statement is not true, then what reasonable basis would there be for trusting the statements before or after it?

And if gospel makes explicit claims that are not true, then it would hardly be 'beautiful' - unless one is using that term as it is would be used of any other man-made work of fiction that people know is not true but read simply for their own amusement and label 'beautiful' if it sufficiently pleases them.

Slav

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com

My idle curiosity made me read it. By the very beginning, at Chapter 2 that the link points to, I started suspecting that it's not going to be a serious biblical scholarship. The alarm was raised by the mentoring tone of the book - although not that mentoring as the post I got the link from but still. It's something you don't normally find in a serious research but it's so abundant in some not-so-serious amateur studies.

By the next chapter, I knew it's not going to be serious one when I read:

The belief that John was the author of the fourth gospel is typically defended with this excuse: ‘John didn’t identify himself as the author because he wanted to be humble.’ Is this reasonable?

John named himself five times in the Book of Revelation.

But I still finished it. Why did I do it?..

In short, the very brief Witherington's blog post that PDN gave a link to at the very beginning of this thread looks IMHO far better and makes much more sense than this whole book as far as Lazarus theory is concerned.

Fanny Cradock

Slav wrote: »

My idle curiosity made me read it. By the very beginning, at Chapter 2 that the link points to, I started suspecting that it's not going to be a serious biblical scholarship. The alarm was raised by the mentoring tone of the book - although not that mentoring as the post I got the link from but still. It's something you don't normally find in a serious research but it's so abundant in some not-so-serious amateur studies.

By the next chapter, I knew it's not going to be serious one when I read:

But I still finished it. Why did I do it?..

In short, the very brief Witherington's blog post that PDN gave a link to at the very beginning of this thread looks IMHO far better and makes much more sense than this whole book as far as Lazarus theory is concerned.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the book.

getz

you must look out of the box,the answer is in early christain writings,mary magdalena is referred in ealry christain writings as the apostle to the apostles,she is portrayed as a visionary and leader of the early movement who was LOVED BY JESUS MORE THAN ANY OTHER.

Asry

getz wrote: »

you must look out of the box,the answer is in early christain writings,mary magdalena is referred in ealry christain writings as the apostle to the apostles,she is portrayed as a visionary and leader of the early movement who was LOVED BY JESUS MORE THAN ANY OTHER.

Could you link to the writings, please? It'd be cool to read that.

georgieporgy

Asry wrote: »

Could you link to the writings, please? It'd be cool to read that.

Dan brown I think...

getz

Asry wrote: »

Could you link to the writings, please? It'd be cool to read that.

go to wikipedia and type in mary magdalena,it will give you all the leads,and also why the male dominated church tried its best to link edit her from the new testament.

Bob Cratchet

GotScripture wrote: »

Bob,

You quoted my post 34 and then said "Using that hypothesis..." but what are you calling "that hypothesis?

You had quoted wikipedia claims that attacked the gospel's explicit authorship claim.

I quoted scripture in response to your wiki quote and said Bible students would do better to base their biblical understanding on what the Bible says.

I also suggested those who are seeking the truth cannot take a pick-and-choose approach to scripture and that, therefore, if one is going to say the gospel presents truth, then they would also have to take the gospel's explicit authorship claim at face value.

So, what specifically are you referring to as "that hypothesis"?

Again, the gospel says, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things". So that is not MY claim. That is the claim of the anonymous author and either that statement is true or it is not true.

If it is true, then all that wikipedia non-eyewitness, gospel by committee, three part layer authorship nonsense is false.

If the statement is not true, then what reasonable basis would there be for trusting the statements before or after it?

And if gospel makes explicit claims that are not true, then it would hardly be 'beautiful' - unless one is using that term as it is would be used of any other man-made work of fiction that people know is not true but read simply for their own amusement and label 'beautiful' if it sufficiently pleases them.

Then why was it not called the Gospel according to Lazarus ?

Given he was it’s true author as you claim, there should have been no issue in calling the book by it's true name ?

GotScripture

Bob, I asked "what specifically are you referring to" to see where you were coming up with "hypothesis" that you proposed, since nothing I posted ever suggested the gospel should be named after anybody. That is your idea not mine, which is obviously you had to ignore the request to be specific. If you think it best to copy-quote my entire post, ignore my question and simply repeat yourself, go ahead, then I see no need to address your comments.

But please stop asserting I have proposed things I have not said. You, in your wiki-guided wisdom, can call the book whatever you want to… but, then again, if you spend more time on the wiki pages and the other non-Bible sources recommended by getz in posts 40 and 43, perhaps your next hypothesis will be the book should be named after Mary Magdalene.

GotScripture

As is usually the case when the topic of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is discussed, it is not long before someone who believes that unnamed disciple was Mary Magdalene chimes in. As was noted in post 29, Mary Magdalene is one of the candidates frequently suggested as being the anonymous "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" who wrote the fourth gospel…

Those who choose to look "outside the text" will conclude the one whom "Jesus loved" was whoever the source they trust says this was (and a Google of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" will show there are MANY such thesis candidates John, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Judas (yes, believe it or not, there are people who promote this thesis also), etc.)

Any survey of this topic will also show the idea this disciple was Mary Magdalene is roundly dismissed and looked down upon with disdain by those say this disciple was John. However, the funny thing is those who parrot the idea this author was John and make statements like 'John was the author of the gospel', have just as much scripture to justify the John belief as those who believe this unnamed author was Mary Magdalene have to justify their belief. But in fact there is not a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching EITHER idea, so the number in both cases is ZERO. The the John idea and the Mary Magdalene idea are equally unbiblical.

No biblical justification for believing either John or Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple who wrote the fourth gospel and yet both ideas have legions of outspoken adherents who are quick to proclaim their proposed candidate wrote the gospel.

Advocates for both sides use the same methods, they point people away from scripture and urge them to rely on this-or-that non-Bible source that agrees with them and in which they have put their trust in, i.e., which to them are authoritative ("early christain writings", etc.), despite the fact those sources have no biblical justification for the belief they are espousing. So, those who choose to believe either of those ideas can heap to themselves teachers that tickle their itching ears and tell them what they want to hear. If you want to believe either Mary Magdalene or John is the author of the fourth gospel, all you have to do is set aside the testimony of scripture and put your trust in the same non-Bible sources that are trusted by the adherents to that belief.

On this question, like every other Bible question, the issue comes down to the authority that one chooses as the foundation for their belief (as was argued in post 32). If a person has confidence in some non-Bible source, then if that source says 'x' (i.e., in this case says the gospel was written by Mary Magdalene or says it was written by John, etc.), then the person will believe 'x' is true even if they are offered no biblical justification for that belief. The statements of people proclaiming these beliefs without biblical justification proves this.

But, on the other hand, there remains the testimony of inspired scripture and the Bible does say "scripture is profitable for correction". And those who choose to subject their belief on this issue to biblical scrutiny will find that neither the Mary Magdalene idea nor the John idea can stand up to biblical scrutiny. Those who prefer to demand a biblical justification for their belief on biblical issues will be forced to reject claims that have no such justification.

As was also argued in post 29, those who rely on the Bible ONLY will NECESSARILY come to the conclusion neither Mary Magdalene nor John can be the author of the fourth gospel because they do not fit ALL of the facts that scripture tells us about this unnamed author.

Bob Cratchet

GotScripture wrote: »

Bob, I asked "what specifically are you referring to" to see where you were coming up with "hypothesis" that you proposed, since nothing I posted ever suggested the gospel should be named after anybody. That is your idea not mine, which is obviously you had to ignore the request to be specific. If you think it best to copy-quote my entire post, ignore my question and simply repeat yourself, go ahead, then I see no need to address your comments.

But please stop asserting I have proposed things I have not said. You, in your wiki-guided wisdom, can call the book whatever you want to… but, then again, if you spend more time on the wiki pages and the other non-Bible sources recommended by getz in posts 40 and 43, perhaps your next hypothesis will be the book should be named after Mary Magdalene.

I'm interested in the following ;

Why, in your own words/opinion, do you think it was not called the Gospel according to Lazarus ?

If Lazarus was the true author and it speaks the truth, why, in your opinion, do you think the Gospel was not called by its true name ?

PDN

Slav wrote: »

But I still finished it. Why did I do it?..

In short, the very brief Witherington's blog post that PDN gave a link to at the very beginning of this thread looks IMHO far better and makes much more sense than this whole book as far as Lazarus theory is concerned.

And there's a reason why it makes more sense. Whether you agree with Witherinton's suggestion of Lazarus or not, he is an informed and reflective biblical scholar rather than a conspiracy-driven fruit cake.

getz

if you are looking for the answer,you will not find it in the selected books that are the new testament,the church of the time had a sexist agenda,any of the books that would show a women as a equal in the christian church was not excepted,in fact if you look at the gnostic books of the gospel of thomas or the gospel of luke,you will find statements like,mary magdalena,[companion of jesus]and [he loved her more than any other] the churches stance against women is on shaky ground, as many women of the passed were leader of the church,many of the great phrophets of isreal were women,exodus 15.20 judges 4.4-5 luke2.36-38 ,luke 8.-3,10.38-39.women took a role in the early church leadership,acts 18.24-2 acts 1.12-14,romans 1.1-16.as the bible says,you are all sons of god,there is neither jew greek slave nor free male or female, in my eyes mary magdalene must of been the one who jesus loved,

PDN

getz wrote: »

if you are looking for the answer,you will not find it in the selected books that are the new testament,the church of the time had a sexist agenda,any of the books that would show a women as a equal in the christian church was not excepted,in fact if you look at the gnostic books of the gospel of thomas or the gospel of luke,you will find statements like,mary magdalena,[companion of jesus]and [he loved her more than any other] the churches stance against women is on shaky ground, as many women of the passed were leader of the church,many of the great phrophets of isreal were women,exodus 15.20 judges 4.4-5 luke2.36-38 ,luke 8.-3,10.38-39.women took a role in the early church leadership,acts 18.24-2 acts 1.12-14,romans 1.1-16.as the bible says,you are all sons of god,there is neither jew greek slave nor free male or female, in my eyes mary magdalene must of been the one who jesus loved,

The irony is terrific.

You say that we won't find the answer in any of the New Testament books - but then you try to support your position by referring to 6 passages from 3 of those very same books and quote from another (Galatians).

getz

PDN wrote: »

The irony is terrific.

You say that we won't find the answer in any of the New Testament books - but then you try to support your position by referring to 6 passages from 3 of those very same books and quote from another (Galatians).

i said [in the contex of who did jesus love most]you will not find THAT answer in the new testament ,as for my other quotations it was to show why there was no justification to edit and even try to smear also eliminate mary magdalena from the books of the new testament by the roman church,