John 19:26-27, The one he loved?

[RomanRyan1088]

I have always been taught that this was John, until I read the actual biblical verse, it says:

“When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved…”

How do we know this is John, also in John 13:23, it says the following:

One of the disciples, to whom Jesus Loved…

Again, how do we know this is John? When i hear " Who he loved", I think it could be anyone of his disciples. So how do we know this is John?

 

[Pedro]

The Fourth Gospel says its author is the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20-24). There is unanimous tradition that John wrote the Fourth Gospel that bears his name.

Also from the Navarre Bible, Intro to the Gospel of John:

“The Synoptics tell us that Jesus loved 3 of the disciples in a special way, choosing them to see his glory on Tabor (Mt 17:1-2) and his suffering and humiliation in Gethsemane (Mk 14:33). They were Peter, James and John. One of them is the “beloved disciple”.
He cannot be Peter because we see him accompanied by the beloved disciple (Jn 20:2, 21:20). Nor can he be James because he was martyred around 40 and the Fourth Gospel was written toward the end of the first centruty. That only leaves John.”

 

[ncjohn]

I have seen a couple interesting theories–one that the beloved disciple was Lazarus based on the Lazarus account and its descriptions that “Jesus loved Lazarus”; and a more interesting one that it was Mary Magdalene.

The Mary Magdalene one in particular is well researched and shows extensive indication that the gospel was altered after its initial writing. Reading the passages it specifically referred to, that seemed a very plausible conclusion. The theory behind that is that the mainstream church would not have accepted the Johannine community actually having been led by a woman and consequently brought the gospel into an “acceptable” state to allow the community’s inclusion. As I recall, the author acknowledged that the identity of the beloved disciple could not be proven, as apparently no original texts exist, but believed the Mary Magdalene authorship as plausible as any.

I would have to dig out the source as I don’t recall it off the top of my head. I neither promote it or deny it as it is one of those unknown mysteries for which we will probably not know the answer while on earth. It was interesting reading though.

Peace,
John

 

[Liberian]

ncjohn:

I have seen a couple interesting theories–one that the beloved disciple was Lazarus based on the Lazarus account and its descriptions that “Jesus loved Lazarus”; and a more interesting one that it was Mary Magdalene.

The Mary Magdalene one in particular is well researched and shows extensive indication that the gospel was altered after its initial writing. Reading the passages it specifically referred to, that seemed a very plausible conclusion. The theory behind that is that the mainstream church would not have accepted the Johannine community actually having been led by a woman and consequently brought the gospel into an “acceptable” state to allow the community’s inclusion. As I recall, the author acknowledged that the identity of the beloved disciple could not be proven, as apparently no original texts exist, but believed the Mary Magdalene authorship as plausible as any.

I would have to dig out the source as I don’t recall it off the top of my head. I neither promote it or deny it as it is one of those unknown mysteries for which we will probably not know the answer while on earth. It was interesting reading though.

Peace,
John

John,

The theory about Mary Magdalene is quite something, particularly since Jesus on the cross saw Mary and the beloved disciple and said to Mary, “Woman, behold your son,” and to the beloved disciple, “Your mother.” Of course, if you believe that the text of the Gospel has been monkeyed with, you can make it say anything you like. I could probably make a case for the beloved disciple being Caiaphas under those circumstances.

• Liberian

 

[ncjohn]

Liberian:

John,

The theory about Mary Magdalene is quite something, particularly since Jesus on the cross saw Mary and the beloved disciple and said to Mary, “Woman, behold your son,” and to the beloved disciple, “Your mother.” Of course, if you believe that the text of the Gospel has been monkeyed with, you can make it say anything you like. I could probably make a case for the beloved disciple being Caiaphas under those circumstances.

• Liberian

As I said, I neither endorse nor condemn the theory, especially given that no one alive knows definitely who the “beloved disciple” actually was. When you look at the particular verses the article referenced, the wording is very awkward and does give the appearance of having been “monkeyed with.” The theory did not rest on solely speculation of the wording however, but since it’s been a long time since I read it, I don’t remember all the particulars. As I said, I’ll have to try to find it again when I have time for anybody who would be interested. When I find it I’ll post the link.

Most scripture scholars agree that the gospel was not written by John, that it was probably written by more than one person, that parts were added after its completion (particularly Ch 21), and that at least some of the inconsistencies present were probably part of subsequent editing. Regardless of who wrote it or when, it is the work accepted in composing the Canon so it is the insprired Word of God. Study or speculation about who wrote it, just as in discovering that not all of the letters ascribed to Paul were actually his, is interesting and informative, but doesn’t change their value or meaning. As such I have no problem with seeing diverse theories of the authorship or debate over who the “beloved disciple” might have been.

Peace,
John

 

[NotWorthy]

Our priest said that John wanted to divert attention from himself. That’s why he referred to himself as “the disciple that Jesus loved”. You’ll note he used the same term at the Last Supper, also.

NotWorthy

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

NotWorthy:

Our priest said that John wanted to divert attention from himself. That’s why he referred to himself as “the disciple that Jesus loved”. You’ll note he used the same term at the Last Supper, also.

NotWorthy

That’s something I’d heard, too, and it makes sense. John didn’t want to glorify himself; he wanted to draw attention to the One who loved him.
I’ve never heard the theory I’m going to give before, so I’m not sure if it really works, but here’s my own idea of why John refers to himself as the beloved disciple. John was given his name by his parents, and he was referred to as “John” by probably everyone who knew him. It was his identity. When he met Jesus, however, he gained a new and more profound identity. He was no longer just John the fisherman. He was God’s Beloved. This identity became his to such an extent that it was the way he wanted to identify himself from that time on. His name, his former occupation, everything about him was secondary to the one important truth of his existence: he was the Beloved Disciple. Aside from that, nothing else really mattered.

 

[ncjohn]

Ok, I’m back from vacation and as promised here is the link to the article I referenced dealing with the idea of Mary Magdalene as “the beloved disciple.”

Strictly for what it’s worth, but interesting reading and as plausible as any other theory I’ve read.

ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

Peace,
John

 

[Fidelis]

ncjohn:

Most scripture scholars agree that the gospel was not written by John, that it was probably written by more than one person, that parts were added after its completion (particularly Ch 21), and that at least some of the inconsistencies present were probably part of subsequent editing.

It isn’t true that “most scripture scholars” agree to this, although it may be true that most liberal scholars do. At the very least, there are a number of schools of thought on this, including the traditional conclusion derived from both the text and patristic testimony that the Gospel of John was indeed written by John the Apostle.

As to the Mary Magdalene theory, judging by the link provided, I’m not surprised by the conclusion of the source. The theory is based on the type of highly questionable “scholarship” that brought us “The Da Vinci Code.” The fact that the site advertise books by feminist and dissenting authors who ascribe to these types of wildly speculative theories is another warning sign, as is the link to the “National Catholic Reporter,” a well-known journal of liberalism and dissent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and in a sense one theory is a good as another. The promoters of this particular theory however (and I’m not including the OP, as he has made it clear he merely finds this plausable), have a clear agenda of “reimagining” history and the Gospel to fit a feminist agenda. And that’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.

It may be instructive for those who have questions about this issue to visit and excellent website by Carl Olsen, co-author of “The Da Vinci Hoax.” It can be found at the link below.

carl-olson.com/abouttdvc.html

 

[ncjohn]

Fidelis:

It isn’t true that “most scripture scholars” agree to this, although it may be true that most liberal scholars do. At the very least, there are a number of schools of thought on this, including the traditional conclusion derived from both the text and patristic testimony that the Gospel of John was indeed written by John the Apostle.

As to the Mary Magdalene theory, judging by the link provided, I’m not surprised by the conclusion of the source. The theory is based on the type of highly questionable “scholarship” that brought us “The Da Vinci Code.” The fact that the site advertise books by feminist and dissenting authors who ascribe to these types of wildly speculative theories is another warning sign, as is the link to the “National Catholic Reporter,” a well-known journal of liberalism and dissent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and in a sense one theory is a good as another. The promoters of this particular theory however (and I’m not including the OP, as he has made it clear he merely finds this plausable), have a clear agenda of “reimagining” history and the Gospel to fit a feminist agenda. And that’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.

It may be instructive for those who have questions about this issue to visit and excellent website by Carl Olsen, co-author of “The Da Vinci Hoax.” It can be found at the link below.

carl-olson.com/abouttdvc.html

\

I am curious as to whether you actually read the article or are just commenting based on the content of the site? The author of the article, as best I can tell, has no feminist agenda, and has specifically commented on the extensive problems with the da Vinci Code and the damage that book has done to serious scholarship.

As to whether scholars believe John wrote the gospel, even my St. Joseph Bible (NAB) states that it is almost certainly the product of multiple writers and editors, and I believe my wife’s New Jerusalem vresion came to a similar conclusion, although it’s been a while since I looked so I might be wrong there.

That being said, they are all interesting theories that in the end don’t detract from the truth of the message regardless of who wrote it. I don’t know if we’ll get answers to stuff like this in heaven, or if we’ll care (I doubt it!), but I find that just the discussions force me back to study scripture more, which can never be a bad thing.

Peace,
John

 

[Fidelis]

\I am curious as to whether you actually read the article or are just commenting based on the content of the site?

Set your curiousity at ease: I wouldn’t comment on anything I haven’t read.

The author of the article, as best I can tell, has no feminist agenda, and has specifically commented on the extensive problems with the da Vinci Code and the damage that book has done to serious scholarship.

From the article:

The reason that the Beloved Disciple was turned into a man in the text was because this disciple was clearly the founder and hero of the community that produced this Gospel. At some point after the death of Jesus, the emerging male leadership of that community simply became embarrassed about having a female founder. (Remember, we’re dealing with male attitudes towards women 2,000 years ago.) In order to “mainstream” their community, they suppressed some of the more radical practices that Jesus taught them through his example – such as treating everyone with equal dignity and respect, including the sick, the poor, the oppressed, the outcast, and women. Jesus apparently did not object to men and women sharing power and positions of leadership. Some of his successors, however, were not courageous enough to be so radical. So, in the case of the Gospel of John, the female Beloved Disciple had to become male.

The depiction of Jesus as some sort of proto-feminist and the presumption of the later Church as a petty, hateful, woman-hating institution who resorted to re-writing the Gospels to suppress it’s feminine origins is pretty standard feminist fare. The scope of conspiracy to be able to pull this off is akin to the claim by some fringe Protestants that ancient Baptists existed throughout Church history, but the Catholic Church has erased all records of their existence . Any informed person (as you seem to be) who is unable to recognize this is too deeply immersed in this type of theology overcome the obvious. As far as the writer distancing himself from the *Da Vinci Code * itself (which I didn’t see him do in this particular piece, except to downplay the theory of the Jesus/Magadalene romance), if I were trying to pass myself off as a serious scholar, I would distance myself from that ridiculous book as well!

As to whether scholars believe John wrote the gospel, even my St. Joseph Bible (NAB) states that it is almost certainly the product of multiple writers and editors, and I believe my wife’s New Jerusalem vresion came to a similar conclusion, although it’s been a while since I looked so I might be wrong there.

Thus my comments about liberal scripture scholars. The NAB and the NEW Jerusalem Bible are notorious examples. While there is much good in them, the liberal bias is pervasive. The Navarre Bible Commentary, on the other hand, says this about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel:

John is the inspired author of the fourth Gospel. This is explicitly recognized by tradition and witnessed to by, among others, Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen. It is also borne out by internal evidence of the text: the author’s familiarity with Jewish customs and his policy of pointing out how the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled (the cleansing of the Temple, the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the unbelief of the Jews, the distribution of Jesus’ clothes and the casting of lots for his tunic, the piercing of his side with a lance); the vivid eyewitness quality of many of his accounts; his detailed knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem (he knows that the portico of Solomon is part of the Temple; that there was a pavement in the praetorium called Gabbatha; that the pool of Bethzatha has five porticoes and is located near the Sheep Gate); and, finally, by the wealth of detail which gives the narrative a special freshness and originality which could only come from an eyewitness.

To this should be added the fact that whereas the synoptics expressly mention John ( Matthew three times, Luke seven and Mark nine), the fourth Gospel never gives his name, and never refers to his family, except on one occasion when it mentions the sons of Zebedee (21:2). Because the author seems to hide his true identity by using the literary form of ‘he whom Jesus loved’ (13:23) and this could only refer to our Lord’s three most intimate apostles (Peter, James and John: Matt. 17:12 Mark 14:33), we can conclude by process of elimination that this disciple was John, because we know James was already dead (he died in the year 44, in the reign of Agrippa) and Peter asked this disciple a question (13:24) but Peter had also died a martyr’s death in Rome during Nero’s persecution of the Church, which began in 64.

Peace,
Fidelis

 

[ncjohn]

Fidelis:

Thus my comments about liberal scripture scholars. The NAB and the NEW Jerusalem Bible are notorious examples. While there is much good in them, the liberal bias is pervasive. The Navarre Bible Commentary, on the other hand, says this about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel

Wow, that’s some interesting information. I have to admit being caught off guard by these comments about NAB and New Jerusalem versions. I don’t like the NJ, but have used the NAB for years as I like the readability of it and it seems to be the one that the liturgical readings come from so it makes it easy for me to review readings for Sundays when I’m a lector. I’ll have to do a little bit more research on that whole subject though.

The author’s comments about the da Vinci Code were in a separate article I read in trying to figure out who the guy was and what slant he might have. There wasn’t a lot on him but I didn’t really find anything negative per se. I do still want to do a little research on the primary source he kept referencing to see if the source really has the credibility he was ascribing to him.

As I said, it doesn’t really matter to me who wrote the gospel or how it was edited. The fact that the Church has included it in the canon in the form it has is all I need. Still, while not a scripture scholar by any stretch of the imagination, I do tend to go in for some research when something piques my curiosity. Thanks for the information, and thanks for the respectful way you presented it–that can be hard to come by here at times.

Peace,
John

 

[Fidelis]

ncjohn:

Thanks for the information, and thanks for the respectful way you presented it–that can be hard to come by here at times.

Peace,
John

Likewise, I’m sure.