The disciple whom Jesus loved

[junego]

... the overriding conscensus is that the work was written most likely around 90-100AD, and that in the original 'signs' portion was written earlier, around 70AD.

Can someone walk me through how this 'disciple whom Jesus loved' went from believing in a celestial-only Christ to his followers thinking he had known Jesus as a historical person in such a short amount of time?

Extrapolating from a mythicist hypothesis, if such a person as the "beloved disciple" ever existed at all outside of a literary/theological construct, they only knew of a celestial Jesus but died before*/were lost during the Jewish war (so never heard the earthly Jesus story, but their reputation was used to start the sect) or someone acquired this title later (after the Jewish war) and started the sect after the historization of Christ and never knew about the a celestial Jesus (or didn't accept any sects that still preached such a creed or...) there are a number of plausible scenarios.

*average lifespan, if you survived childhood, was about 45 years.

I wonder if the time frames are too narrow; too assumed. I think its quite possible that the celestial-only Christ was a belief for quite a while before the appearance of the Jesus-narrative. The celestial-only Christ may just as well have been around before the mid-1st C; and the Jesus narrative, or similar, may separately have been around earlier, too (eg. the 1st C BC Joseph and Aseneth story)

Agree, mostly. We have some evidence in Philo's writing of some type of veneration (nearing worship?) of a not quite anthropomorphized celestial son of Yahweh, plus there is the very similar language used by Philo and Paul to describe their separate sons of Yahweh which might be evidence of a common thread or background of thinking among the Jews.

I'm not familiar with the Joseph and Aseneth story or any other possible connections from that early.

[TedM]

... the overriding conscensus is that the work was written most likely around 90-100AD, and that in the original 'signs' portion was written earlier, around 70AD.

Can someone walk me through how this 'disciple whom Jesus loved' went from believing in a celestial-only Christ to his followers thinking he had known Jesus as a historical person in such a short amount of time?

Extrapolating from a mythicist hypothesis, if such a person as the "beloved disciple" ever existed at all outside of a literary/theological construct, they only knew of a celestial Jesus but died before*/were lost during the Jewish war (so never heard the earthly Jesus story, but their reputation was used to start the sect) or someone acquired this title later (after the Jewish war) and started the sect after the historization of Christ and never knew about the a celestial Jesus (or didn't accept any sects that still preached such a creed or...) there are a number of plausible scenarios.

the plausibility depends on the timing, as MrMacSon points out, of the belief developments.

*average lifespan, if you survived childhood, was about 45 years.

Perhaps, but that's a highly misleading number because it makes it sound like the TOP agespan was around 50, maybe 55, yet there we have clear evidence that people lived in the 70s,80s, etc... back then. THOSE people, as well as oral tradition, serve to 'check' the truth when stories change, so any change in the beliefs of a well-known 'disciple' in the celestial Christ to something completely different -- to the point where that well known disciple was believed to have written a historical account of his earthly relationship with that Christ, would have been disputed by those who survived.

I don't the the rhetorical value of the phrase 'disciple whom Jesus loved' is very powerful, nor that helpful to a sect. I think it is more likely that there was a disciple who personally thought of himself that way.

[steve43]

Josephus documents that certain Jewish priests lived to be over 100 years old.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi TedM,

The group that John belonged to was gay, or at least they hated women. In the original text the reference "beloved disciple" was to Mary." John and his buddies couldn't stand that so they changed it. The scene where Jesus says, "Do you love me, Peter" was also originally, "Do you love me, Mary?"
The original genre of the passion narrative was Roman novel, and the love affair between Jesus and Mary was the heart of the story. It had to be covered up to make the text more believable. There are enough scenes between Jesus and Mary (including the Wedding at Cana and the Lazarus scene) to see where the whole thing was coming from.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Under the assumption that GJohn was written by 120AD, why would an author make up such a designation if such disciples never existed?

[Charles Wilson]

Bad assumption.....

steve43-

Not really. The early references in Acts finds the 12th Legion getting mauled at Beth Horon. The faux references supposedly reflecting OT advance "Knowledge" of "Jesus" - "Desolate be his abode" and " "Let another his office take" describe Cestius at Lydda, which is desolate since the people are in Jerusalem for Passover and later that Cestius is replaced. The Cripple at the Gates is a reference to the 12th Legion which was also almost destroyed previously, having its Standard stolen before finally returning to the angry eyes of Corbulo - assuming Annals. Oy.

None of this is convincing to you so let me give you a little Joke that you will probably also find unconvincing.

In Acts are several mentions of "Magicians". Now, Jay does analysis on these magicians and finds the "Blinding of Elymas" to be mean and unnecessary. I agree. However, I believe that - given that "The Romans did it" - there ought to be a reference somewhere to someone who might have been a magician in the eyes of the Flavian AgitProp Groups. There is:

Acts 13: 8 - 11 (RSV):

[8] But El'ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
[9] But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
[10] and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
[11] And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.

There often appears in these stories to be a small statement, a clause or phrase, that provides a hint that there is a reference to some Historian, usually Josephus, Suetonius or Tacitus and so it is here. The clue in this verse is, "...you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time...". Further, we are told that this "Magician" is the "...son of the devil..." Did you guess the Emperor whose father was indeed the "...son of the devil...", an Emperor who was adopted by Claudius?

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Nero":

"He [[Nero]] planned but two foreign tours, to Alexandria and Achaia; and he gave up the former on the very day when he was to have started, disturbed by a threatening portent. For as he was making the round of the temples and had sat down in the shrine of Vesta, first the fringe of his garment caught when he attempted to get up, and then such darkness overspread his eyes that he could see nothing..."

This, alone and isolated, tells us almost nothing as an argument in "The Big Picture". It does, however, give a clue as to the use of the word "Magician". Simon Magus is a Magician and if he is a Roman emperor, the clue would lead us to examine an Emperor who attempted to Bribe his way out of being cursed in the face of advancing Disciples. 'N that would most certainly frame one "Vitellius" quite nicely.

A very small Joke but a Joke nonetheless. Again, one thing leads to another...

CW

PS Edit: Speaking of Annals, here's another one from Acts. Can you name a character, who had a "husband" (Hint), a female character who had a ground level view of her attacker's feet?

Acts 5: 9 (RSV):

[9] But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

[TedM]

interesting,..i've heard the Mary hypothesis before, and that would remove the idea that a well-known disciple who believed only in a celestial Jesus was morphed into a follower of a Jesus on earth who even wrote a gospel about it, because one could argue that Mary was made up..harder to do when we have Paul writing about John in Galations as one of the pillars.

Hi TedM,

The group that John belonged to was gay, or at least they hated women. In the original text the reference "beloved disciple" was to Mary." John and his buddies couldn't stand that so they changed it. The scene where Jesus says, "Do you love me, Peter" was also originally, "Do you love me, Mary?"
The original genre of the passion narrative was Roman novel, and the love affair between Jesus and Mary was the heart of the story. It had to be covered up to make the text more believable. There are enough scenes between Jesus and Mary (including the Wedding at Cana and the Lazarus scene) to see where the whole thing was coming from.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Under the assumption that GJohn was written by 120AD, why would an author make up such a designation if such disciples never existed?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi TedM,

The name John is mentioned once in Galatians. There are numerous problems with calling John a pillar of the Church. First, is he referring to John the Baptist, John the disciple, John the apostle, or John the alleged writer of a gospel. Is it John, brother of James, bar Thunder, or John, brother of James, Zebedee? Perhaps, he is talking about John of Gischala, Josephus describes him in Book 4 of "War" this way:

NOW no place of Galilee remained to be taken but the small city of Gischala, whose multitude yet were desirous of peace; for they were generally husbandmen, and always applied themselves to cultivate the fruits of the earth. However, there were a great number that belonged to a band of robbers, that were already corrupted, and had crept in among them, and some of the governing part of the citizens were sick of the same distemper. It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it. He was a cunning knave, and of a temper that could put on various shapes; very rash in expecting great things, and very sagacious in bringing about what he hoped for. It was known to every body that he was fond of war, in order to thrust himself into authority; and the seditious part of the people of Gischala were under his management,

In the gospels we are always getting James mentioned along with his brother John. In Galatians 2:4, we get a mention of "false brethen." Since we get a mention of James and john as false brethen who are only fighting with Jesus to win riches in the Kingdom of heaven, I think we can assume that the line in question originally read:

And when James and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The reasons for this are: 1. the false brethen are put in opposition to Peter who spreads the gospel to the circumcised. Peter is opposed to James in the rest of the text. Why is he connected with him here. 2) James and John balance Paul and Barnabas something classical writers usually did.

This leads me to believe that the famous phrase in Galatians 1.19 "James, brother of the Lord," was originally "James and his brother John."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

interesting,..i've heard the Mary hypothesis before, and that would remove the idea that a well-known disciple who believed only in a celestial Jesus was morphed into a follower of a Jesus on earth who even wrote a gospel about it, because one could argue that Mary was made up..harder to do when we have Paul writing about John in Galations as one of the pillars.

Hi TedM,

The group that John belonged to was gay, or at least they hated women. In the original text the reference "beloved disciple" was to Mary." John and his buddies couldn't stand that so they changed it. The scene where Jesus says, "Do you love me, Peter" was also originally, "Do you love me, Mary?"
The original genre of the passion narrative was Roman novel, and the love affair between Jesus and Mary was the heart of the story. It had to be covered up to make the text more believable. There are enough scenes between Jesus and Mary (including the Wedding at Cana and the Lazarus scene) to see where the whole thing was coming from.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Under the assumption that GJohn was written by 120AD, why would an author make up such a designation if such disciples never existed?

[Charles Wilson]

Speaking of Annals, here's another one from Acts. Can you name a character, who had a "husband" (Hint), a female character who had a ground level view of her attacker's feet?

Acts 5: 9 (RSV):

[9] But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

NO GUESSES?!??

Annals, Book 11:

"Narcissus, accordingly, burst out of the room, and ordered the centurions and tribune in attendance to carry out the execution: the instructions came from the emperor. Evodus, one of the freedmen, was commissioned to guard against escape and to see that the deed was done. Hurrying to the Gardens in advance of the rest, he discovered Messalina prone on the ground, and, seated by her side, her mother Lepida..."