A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:But on this web page http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html, then "find" on >> C) Authorship: <<, I have a more detailed depiction of that "beloved disciple".
You write:

In the surviving works of Irenaeus (175-185), the author of the gospel & 'Revelation' is often called "John, the disciple of the Lord". However, this John is never specified as a son_of_Zebedee/fisherman/Galilean/one_of_the_twelve or even "apostle" (but Peter, Matthew & the twelve are), despite the fact, earlier, Justin Martyr (150-160) stated: 'Trypho', LXXXI "... there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

But refer to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.9.2-3:

2 The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,-these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma. Thus it is that, wresting from the truth every one of the expressions which have been cited, and taking a bad advantage of the names, they have transferred them to their own system; so that, according to them, in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. For if he has named the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia, according to their hypothesis, he has, by thus speaking, referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of John [ἐν ᾗ οὐδέπω Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω Χριστός, ὁ τοῦ Ἰωάννου διδάσκαλος]. But that the apostle [ὁ ἀπόστολος] did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the Aeons], and was of later date than the Word.

3 Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the Aeons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle [τὸν ἀπόστολον] spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, John [Iohannes] certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus is their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phoµs, and Sorer, and Christus, and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved to be one and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces. And when this is destroyed, their whole system sinks into ruin,-a system which they falsely dream into existence, and thus inflict injury on the Scriptures, while they build up their own hypothesis.

Refer also to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5:

5 Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου], that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles [alios apostolos] also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

Refer also to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.3:

3 For the apostles [apostoli], since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles [apostolorum]. For Peter, and John [Iohannes], and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.

It appears that Irenaeus wishes to trace behind each of the four gospels an apostolic origin, and he does so by naming Matthew (of course), Paul (as the apostle behind the gospel of Luke), Peter (as the apostle behind the gospel of Mark), and John (evidently considered an apostle, then). This also seems to be the case in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.9:

9 These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean, ] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel [Iohannis evangelium], in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles [apostolorum evangeliis], so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles [apostolis], any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles [apostolis] can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us proceed also to the remaining apostles, and inquire into their doctrine with regard to God; then, in due course we shall listen to the very words of the Lord.

Also, in 3.3.4 Irenaeus recounts the story of how John, the disciple of the Lord, deserted a bathhouse because Cerinthus was there, and then recounts how Polycarp dismissed Marcion with an insult, before summarizing, "Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth." It seems like John is the apostle and Polycarp the disciple of the apostles in this phrase.

Finally, consider Eusebius, History of the Church 5.24.16 (quoting the epistle of Irenaeus to Victor):

16 And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord [Ἰωάννου τοῦ μαθητοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν], and the other apostles [καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀποστόλων] with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

So, for Irenaeus, John (the disciple of the Lord and author of the gospel, the apocalypse, and at least two epistles in his name) seems to be an apostle. That said, this still does not necessarily mean that Irenaeus considers him to be the same as the son of Zebedee. Irenaeus also gives the title of apostle to Paul (many times), probably to Barnabas (3.12.14; the online Harvey translation is not perfect here and obscures the matter), and probably also to the seventy from Luke 10.1 (2.21.1). He even calls John the Baptist an apostle in 3.11.4. So the apostles and the twelve are not necessarily identical.

Nevertheless, I think it is inaccurate to say that Irenaeus denies this title to John, the disciple of the Lord.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu May 25, 2017 7:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard, I also have a question for you regarding the authorship of Revelation, which you ascribe to the elder John. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 5.33.3b-4

3b The blessing thus predicted pertains, without [fear of] contradiction, to the times of the kingdom, when the just, rising from the dead, will reign, when even the creation, renewed and liberated, will produce a multitude of foods of all kinds from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth, just as the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord would teach about those times and would say: "The days will come in which vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape, when pressed, will give twenty-five measures of wine. And, when one of those saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will clamor: I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me! Similarly a grain of wheat also will generate ten thousand heads, and each head will have ten thousand grains, and each grain five double pounds of clear and clean flour. And the remaining fruits and seeds and herbiage will follow through in congruence with these, and all the animals using these foods which are taken from the earth will in turn become peaceful and consenting, subject to men with every subjection." 4 These things Papias too, who was a earwitness of John and companion of Polycarp, and an ancient man, wrote and testified in the fourth of his books. For there are five books written by him. And he adds, saying: But these things are believable by the believers. And, he says, Judas the traitor did not believe and asked: How therefore will such generations be brought to completion by the Lord? The Lord said: Those who come into those [times] will see.

This passage bears a resemblance to 2 Baruch 29.5-6:

5 The earth also shall yield its fruit ten-thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine. 6 And those who have hungered shall rejoice: moreover, also, they shall behold marvels every day.

But in Revelation 20.4-6, the only passage about the millennium in the book, nothing of this sort appears:

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Why do you think Papias passed this on as from John, the author of Revelation, when nothing in Revelation even comes close to resembling this? Is it just a mistake? Did John have a lot more information about the millennial period than he chose to enclose in his apocalypse? Did he honestly just separate out what he had heard from the Lord from what he saw in his vision? Or what?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Why do you think Papias passed this on as from John, the author of Revelation, when nothing in Revelation even comes close to resembling this?...
Could that passage have gone the other way: from Papias to the author of Revelation?

or, could they have got it from a common source?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
Nevertheless, I think it is inaccurate to say that Irenaeus denies this title to John, the disciple of the Lord.
OK, at the time I thought Irenaeus did not qualify specifically John as being an apostle. I may be still right but not with enough certainty to make a point about it. So I'll remove "or even "apostle" (but Peter, Matthew & the twelve are)" and the following passage of Justin Martyr.
Why do you think Papias passed this on as from John, the author of Revelation, when nothing in Revelation even comes close to resembling this? Is it just a mistake? Did John have a lot more information about the millennial period than he chose to enclose in his apocalypse? Did he honestly just separate out what he had heard from the Lord from what he saw in his vision? Or what?
Papias might have used the fact that when he was younger, John was still alive and therefore he could have hear him in Asia minor. Is is true about Papias listening to John? Even if he did, did he hear that particular story from John? I do not know. In any case he used John (dead by then) as an authority, for reason of credibility, not only for this story about multitude of food but for also details on Mark's gospel, probably in order to answer concerns he heard around him.
And Papias must have known about Revelation. And that did not prevent him to attribute the story to John (according to Irenaeus).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:Is is true about Papias listening to John? Even if he did, did he hear that particular story from John?
It is interesting that, while later interpreters of Papias' words definitely thought of him as having personally heard this figure John, whether he was imagined to be the son of Zebedee or a different man, nothing quoted from Papias makes it sound like he himself necessarily had personally listened to either John. Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.4 (quoting Papias):

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord [had said], the things which both Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

This is both one of the most confusingly written and one of the most studied sentences in early patristic studies, but it does not sound to me like Papias is making any claim to have heard either Aristion or the second John directly. These men were still alive during his inquiry, if the verb tenses and change of diction mean anything, but he is still inquiring after their words just as much as he is inquiring after the words of the first seven men in the list. Or so it seems to me, though there are ways of reading almost anything into these two sentences.

What is frustrating about the chain of transmission from Jesus to the fathers of the second century is that earlier links in the chain keep getting removed by later tradents, so as to make it sound as if the chain is shorter than it really is. Eventually Papias will be thought of, in some circles, as John's personal scribe, having penned the gospel at his dictation. Eusebius himself, though treating Papias as "an earwitness of Aristion and of the elder John," also seems to admit that he is making a bit of an assumption here, since he adds, "At least [γοῦν] he mentions them by their name often and gives their traditions in his writings."

For my money, as things stand now, I think that Papias named two different Johns on this list; that he neither had nor claimed any meaningful degree of connection to the first John; that he was aware that the second John was alive while he was seeking information, but probably did not have any direct contact with him; that the same holds for Aristion; and that he got information about Philip from Philip's daughters, who served as the most direct connections amongst any of these chains.

I am also suspicious, at least, of the second instance of "disciples of the Lord" in Papias' statement. It is quite an awkward way to phrase things, and Eusebius' comments about Papias' words work perfectly well without it. Peter Kirby long ago pointed out to me that the Syriac translation of Eusebius' History completely lacks this second instance of these words. Rufinus' Latin translation calls Aristion and the second John "disciples" but lacks "of the Lord" (quaeve Aristion vel Ioannes presbyter ceterique discipuli dicebant, whereas Jerome's version, taken from Eusebius and applied to On Famous Men 18, demonstrates how easy it is to make the Latin reflect the Greek at this point; Jerome effortlessly includes the second "disciples of the Lord"). Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus quotes this line twice (from Eusebius), once with the second "disciples of the Lord" and once without it. Some Greek manuscripts of the History include the definite article οἱ ("the") before the second "disciples of the Lord" phrase; others omit it. I am not sure whether these variants are springing from differences between manuscripts or from the same sense of unease that I myself feel with that second instance of the phrase, but they are interesting, nonetheless.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by TedM »

I have given much thought to these references to the beloved disciple over the years, and would like to make a somewhat simple suggestion concerning him. Two ideas stand in conflict for me. First, most if not all of the references feel so very artificial; it is as if somebody read Mark and perhaps another gospel or two and simply pasted this figure into the plot in the style of personalized fan fiction. The last supper, the crucifixion, and Peter at the fire are all episodes in Mark in which the beloved disciple plays no part at all; he does not even make the initial list of witnesses to the crucifixion in John 19.25, appearing out of nowhere in 19.26 (unless one of the women is this disciple, who is always described with masculine pronouns). Peter visiting the tomb is an episode in many (but not all) manuscripts of Luke, in which, again, the beloved disciple plays no part. So is this figure made up? Second, however, it makes no sense to me to fret over the death of a fictional character in the manner implied in the Johannine appendix. So is this figure real?
And later you refer to this accounts as follows:
hence the artificiality of the stories about this disciple, so evident to us
Hi Ben. I decided to look closer at the 'primary' references to see if they seem artificial to me. I tried not to make any assumptions about them being simple injections of the 'other disciple' from previously known stories, that could possibly bias my view. The only assumption I made was that the author knew who this disciple was by name, but did not want to identify him by name.

Re the last supper I see nothing artificial about the disciple at Peter's prompting asking Jesus who would betray him after being told that one of them would. It seems a normal question.

Re being present at the cross. I don't see his 'sudden' appearance in 19:26 as unusual. It does not strike me as odd that his followers might have been at the cross. The author doesn't say he was standing with the women. He says he was standing nearby the women. The request to treat his mother as his own doesn't seem artificial either to me. The writer says "from that point on this disciple took her into his home." If Mary was historical, then this would seem to give this disciple some credibilty, as well as this account. In any case I don't see anything artificial about it.

Re Peter and the fire - this isn't one you said is primary but you did mention it as seeming 'artificial'. I do question how likely it is that this disciple would have been known to the High Priest. What else about that seems artificial?

Re Peter and the other disciple running to the tomb. The story doesn't seem artificial to me on the surface.


I can see how since it was easy to interject this 'other disciple' into various parts of the story, that where he appears without even being mentioned in the other accounts, it might be fishy. However, can we say that a motive to create fiction is blatantly obvious from the texts? Or just convenient to explain further information within those texts? WHAT IF the author was that disciple? Wouldn't we then expect him to interject himself where other texts failed to do so if the accounts are true? And wouldn't we expect the other accounts to omit his appearance in certain places because those authors wouldn't be as familiar as the person to which the events happened?

I tend to think the author of John - or at least parts of it - had a more accurate account of some events than the synoptics, showing more of a first-hand knowledge. What if that is true? What basis is there to conclude that being first chronologically (ie GMark) should be given precedence in terms of accuracy?

I'm curious that things that seem fairly obvious to you in this respect are not obvious to me.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ted, would you agree that, if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus' followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then... there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody's help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus' favorite?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by TedM »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Ted, would you agree that, if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus' followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then... there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody's help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus' favorite?
My initial reaction is no. John was a prominent disciple in GMark - one of the top 3 featured in many of GMark stories. I would fall on the side of saying those omissions can simply be explained by a reasonable assumption that GMark didn't know some of the things that GJohn knew, and neither did GMat or GLuke.

I was curious about the the Luke manuscripts of Peter running to the tomb - that could tip me closer to your view there. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

TedM wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Ted, would you agree that, if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus' followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then... there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody's help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus' favorite?
My initial reaction is no. John was a prominent disciple in GMark - one of the top 3 featured in many of GMark stories.
What reason(s) do you have for thinking that the beloved disciple is this John?
I was curious about the the Luke manuscripts of Peter running to the tomb - that could tip me closer to your view there. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
It is Luke 24.12, one of the so-called Western noninterpolations. (It is present in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, but not in Bezae or Washingtonianus.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: A suggestion regarding the beloved disciple.

Post by TedM »

Wow, 24:12 - for some reason that wasn't in my memory at all. Interesting. Scales are tipping...

RE who the beloved is - I'm going to have to pass. I know that's the tradition but don't know how strong the support is for that. I find it to be a strange phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - one that I would attribute to a woman, but I don't know the culture well enough and as you said the pronouns are masculine. My point was that it looks to me like by itself the phrases don't seem to be clearly artificial - it is only when making assumptions about priority of other passages that one starts to have that suspicion. BUT adding 24:12 to the mix makes your case stronger than I initially was seeing because I wouldn't expect 'the other disciple' to have been left out of that particular verse had he also ran to the tomb.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
TedM wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Ted, would you agree that, if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus' followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then... there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody's help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus' favorite?
My initial reaction is no. John was a prominent disciple in GMark - one of the top 3 featured in many of GMark stories.
What reason(s) do you have for thinking that the beloved disciple is this John?
I was curious about the the Luke manuscripts of Peter running to the tomb - that could tip me closer to your view there. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
It is Luke 24.12, one of the so-called Western noninterpolations. (It is present in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, but not in Bezae or Washingtonianus.)
Post Reply