The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

[benedictus2]

To play the devil’s advocate for now (I would post my reply for Steve later), one line of argument would say that Luke isn’t reliable at this point of his gospel.

Are you now claiming that the Son of God who can calm storms, cure lepers, etc, etc, is incapable of reading or writing? Remember, we are talking about literacy not education.

 

[patrick457]

Are you now claiming that the Son of God who can calm storms, cure lepers, etc, etc, is incapable of reading or writing? Remember, we are talking about literacy not education.

Ain’t me, just to make it clear.

But wait, why did we veer into Jesus’ literacy? I thought we were talking about John here?

 

[benedictus2]

Ain’t me, just to make it clear.

But wait, why did we veer into Jesus’ literacy? I thought we were talking about John here?

I don’t know. You replied to LilyM in a manner which seems to indicate that you think so and I am just questioning your reply.

I think it would be helpful if those who go by the historico critical method would bother to read Pope Benedict’s critiue of this criticism.

 

[patrick457]

What about the other evidence - the writing in the sand during the episode of the woman caught in adultery? The numerous references to Him as Rabbi or Rabboni (rabbis certainly had to be literate!)

Just my two cents.

As I have pointed out, reading and writing are in reality separate skills, and in the ancient world you did not always learn both: just because a person could read is not a 100% automatic guarantee that he could write as well.

Supposing for a moment that Jesus in His humanity could indeed read (something I think is highly possible) it is a different question whether He did learn to write. Sure you have the Pericope Adulterae - I won’t go here into its complicated textual history - but IMHO its not too strong a proof-text for Jesus’ writing ability. Hate to repeat myself but here goes:

Leaving aside the rather complicated textual history of the Pericope Adulterae, I personally don’t think that the passage about Jesus ‘writing’ in the dirt is a strong enough evidence for His ability to write (in His humanity that is). For one we are never told what He was writing: there have been speculations such as Him writing the sins of the woman’s accusers and so on, but for all we know, Jesus could have been ‘drawing’ lines in imitation of writing. In other words, He was more making a gesture rather than writing anything meanful.

Which brings us to this. I’ve seen an interpretation which focuses more not on WHAT Jesus wrote (whatever it really was), but His act of writing itself. Notice: He writes on the dirt with His finger. Could this be an allusion to the Law, written on stone by the finger of God? So in effect, Jesus could have been gesturing to the accusers, “I am the author of the Law; how could I possibly break it?”

In fact, I think the literacy issue and Jesus being a rabbi was already discussed in the thread I posted that in!

 

[patrick457]

I don’t know. You replied to LilyM in a manner which seems to indicate that you think so and I am just questioning your reply.

I think it would be helpful if those who go by the historico critical method would bother to read Pope Benedict’s critiue of this criticism.

I did say that I’m going to be the devil’s advocate for the moment though.

 

[Bible_Truth]

He is remebered in Jewish tradition as a young Priest who used to carry the sacred vessels into the Jewish Temple.

Hi, does the poster or anyone else know where the evidence for this can be found?
It doesn’t exactly sound like the son of Zebedee, but I would like to see the citation for myself.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

There is no reason to the think that Jesus was literate from his known circumstance of growing, and to put that spin on certain passages in the NT is really stretching it. As I have posted somewhere before, Jesus was of uncertain parentage, and so was an outcast for that reason alone. He spent his early years as a refugee, so he never got “in the groove” in a religious sense, where the promising young men were given special attention. He came from a poor family, and had to work to survive.
Not the background of someone who read and wrote in those days.

A bible archaeologist, Craig A Evans, opined that Jesus in fact could be very literate.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I’m going to provide a little background about priests here.

The priests (kohanim) who served in the Temple of Jerusalem are not a party of their own (most of them did not have a party affilliation; we know that some of the aristocratic higher echelons of the priesthood were Sadducees and that some ordinary priests were Pharisees, but most belonged simply to ‘common’ Judaism), but a class, and a large and important one at that. The ministry of the Jewish priesthood was mostly limited to sacrifices and other elements of the Temple cult. They were assisted in their duties by a lower order of clergy, the Levites, who performed various menial tasks. According to Josephus, himself of priestly heritage (Against Apion 2.108), there seem to have been 20,000 priests and Levites together. These (hereditary) sacred offices were not full-time occupations: any given priest or Levite only went to Jerusalem and performed his tasks for a few weeks each year. Both priests and Levites were divided into twenty-four ‘courses’, each of which served in the Temple a week at a time. All the courses were on duty during the three great annual festivals.

The Temple services were maintained chiefly by the capitation tax of a half-shekel payable annually on the first of Adar (February-March) by each male Jew twenty years old and upward, which Jews from all over the world paid. The wood-offering for the sacrifice was also a public donation, contributed annually on the fifteenth of Av (July-August). A further source of support was the freewill offerings, given in various ways, ranging from widely publicized donations to small change dropped into the thirteen trumpet-shaped coin boxes (for the concept think something like the Japanese saisen-bako) situated in the Court of the Women inside the Temple.

The priests derived their emoluments from sin-offerings and reparation-offerings which were normally their prerequisites; so were a considerable part of the grain offerings, the showbread, the breast and right shoulder of the thank-offerings, the skins of animals sacrificed as burnt-offerings, the first-fruits of grain and other produce, and of dough, the firstborn of cattle (or a monetary equivalent), the redemption of the firstborn worth five shekels, part of the proceeds of sheep-shearing and a large number of occasional dues. The tithe was allotted mainly to Levites, who paid a tenth of it to the priests. The tithe of Deuteronomy (14:22ff; 26:12ff) was interpreted at this time as a second tithe to be expended on animals slaughtered for ordinary use (as opposed to those used for sacrifices), of which the priests received certain portions (Deuteronomy 18:3). The high priests of course increasingly appropriated the lion’s share of these for themselves, that at one point it drove ordinary priests to desperate straits.

Aside from this partial sustenance, for most of the year, priests and Levites stayed in their respective hometowns and performed other jobs except for farming, since they were forbidden to work the land. Others worked as scribes (in a Jewish context, ‘scribes’ referred to people who did not only write documents by hand as a profession, but who could also exercise functions we would now associate with notaries, lawyers, judges, and even financiers - hence the “scribes of the Pharisees” and the “chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people”), but most priests apparently engaged in manual labor. Herod the Great had some priests trained in stonemasonry, so that they could build the most sacred areas (Antiquities 15.390).

Very enlightening indeed.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I’m going to provide a little background about priests here.

The priests (kohanim) who served in the Temple of Jerusalem are not a party of their own (most of them did not have a party affilliation; we know that some of the aristocratic higher echelons of the priesthood were Sadducees and that some ordinary priests were Pharisees, but most belonged simply to ‘common’ Judaism), but a class, and a large and important one at that. The ministry of the Jewish priesthood was mostly limited to sacrifices and other elements of the Temple cult. They were assisted in their duties by a lower order of clergy, the Levites, who performed various menial tasks. According to Josephus, himself of priestly heritage (Against Apion 2.108), there seem to have been 20,000 priests and Levites together. These (hereditary) sacred offices were not full-time occupations: any given priest or Levite only went to Jerusalem and performed his tasks for a few weeks each year. Both priests and Levites were divided into twenty-four ‘courses’, each of which served in the Temple a week at a time. All the courses were on duty during the three great annual festivals.

The Temple services were maintained chiefly by the capitation tax of a half-shekel payable annually on the first of Adar (February-March) by each male Jew twenty years old and upward, which Jews from all over the world paid. The wood-offering for the sacrifice was also a public donation, contributed annually on the fifteenth of Av (July-August). A further source of support was the freewill offerings, given in various ways, ranging from widely publicized donations to small change dropped into the thirteen trumpet-shaped coin boxes (for the concept think something like the Japanese saisen-bako) situated in the Court of the Women inside the Temple.

The priests derived their emoluments from sin-offerings and reparation-offerings which were normally their prerequisites; so were a considerable part of the grain offerings, the showbread, the breast and right shoulder of the thank-offerings, the skins of animals sacrificed as burnt-offerings, the first-fruits of grain and other produce, and of dough, the firstborn of cattle (or a monetary equivalent), the redemption of the firstborn worth five shekels, part of the proceeds of sheep-shearing and a large number of occasional dues. The tithe was allotted mainly to Levites, who paid a tenth of it to the priests. The tithe of Deuteronomy (14:22ff; 26:12ff) was interpreted at this time as a second tithe to be expended on animals slaughtered for ordinary use (as opposed to those used for sacrifices), of which the priests received certain portions (Deuteronomy 18:3). The high priests of course increasingly appropriated the lion’s share of these for themselves, that at one point it drove ordinary priests to desperate straits.

Aside from this partial sustenance, for most of the year, priests and Levites stayed in their respective hometowns and performed other jobs except for farming, since they were forbidden to work the land. Others worked as scribes (in a Jewish context, ‘scribes’ referred to people who did not only write documents by hand as a profession, but who could also exercise functions we would now associate with notaries, lawyers, judges, and even financiers - hence the “scribes of the Pharisees” and the “chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people”), but most priests apparently engaged in manual labor. Herod the Great had some priests trained in stonemasonry, so that they could build the most sacred areas (Antiquities 15.390).

Very enlightening indeed.

 

[Bible_Truth]

Very enlightening indeed.

Not really. It’s not very likely 20,000 priests were known to the high priest, or knew the gate keeper or Malchus by name. This John lived in Jerusalem, as seen by the fact he hosted the Last Supper and took Mary to his house the same hour. Jerome says he was a priest of noble birth.

 

[patrick457]

Not really. It’s not very likely 20,000 priests were known to the high priest, or knew the gate keeper or Malchus by name. This John lived in Jerusalem, as seen by the fact he hosted the Last Supper and took Mary to his house the same hour. Jerome says he was a priest of noble birth.

We don’t know whether John hosted the Last Supper; the gospels never give any indication supporting or disputing this. And yes, in a letter sent by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome (AD 192-202), it is said that John “was a priest wearing the petalon” (the Greek word is the same word used to describe the golden plate on the high priest’s headgear in Exodus 28:35ff in the Septuagint).

 

[Bible_Truth]

We don’t know whether John hosted the Last Supper; the gospels never give any indication supporting or disputing this. And yes, in a letter sent by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome (AD 192-202), it is said that John “was a priest wearing the petalon” (the Greek word is the same word used to describe the golden plate on the high priest’s headgear in Exodus 28:35ff in the Septuagint).

It is not true that the Gospels give no indication of this–the seating arrangments, as we find them in the Fourth Gospel, would ordinarily suggest that the Beloved Disciple was the host, as it was the host who leaned on the bosom of the guest of honor (any good commentary should mention this; I know Bernard in the International Critical series discusses it); but the point was also made with reference to the Beloved Disciple taking Mary to his house the same hour. And tradition is emphatic that Mary lived in Jerusalem, not Galilee.

The BD apparently was not resident in Galilee. In fact, there is nothing either in Scripture or in the writings of the fathers before the third century which supports the view that the BD was from Galilee or was the son of Zebedee.

If the BD was known to the high priest, how is it that the high priest and his kin didn’t apprehend that John was unlettered until Acts 4?

 

[steve53]

I would have to disagree with some of Patrick’s scholarship.I am a strict “Josephus” guy and not a “Talmud” guy, for the record.

The High Priesthood was very centralized in Jerusalem. Josephus’ report of 20,000 in the Priesthood has to be questioned. And Josephus doesn’t go one to say that most of them lived in other towns and cities in Judea. The Second Temple priesthood did not keep agent-Priests in different towns, like the Catholic Church does today.
Like other large numbers in Josephus, there was probably an error in translation. Two thousand priests Second Temple priests would fit better, especially when Jerusalem had a permanent population of 50 thousand.And all the Priests had families, and Jerusalem had its own secular infrastructure to maintain as well.
The Temple had four major festivals a year, and many minor ones, all designed to keep the money flowing in. The Upper City held the Second Temple, as well as the Palace of Herod, and the rest of the Upper City was largely made up of the high Priest and their families, and the elite of the Jews.
It is important to remember that the Jews thought God actually lived in the Sanctuary building of the Second Temple, and served as even more of an enticement to live in the city and eschew the countryside.
The High Priesthood also owed their power to the Romans, who likely set up shop in the Palace of Herod with its high walls.

As the Disciple that Jesus Loved, you can make a fun case that he was related to the Ananus family, a priest novitiate, and accompanied Nicodemus to talk with John the Baptist, later providing the room for the last supper and serving as a Secret Disciple, and later revealing himself to be John the Evangelist who eventually wrote the book of John and died during the reign of Trajan.

 

[inkaneer]

There is no reason to the think that Jesus was literate from his known circumstance of growing, and to put that spin on certain passages in the NT is really stretching it. As I have posted somewhere before, Jesus was of uncertain parentage, and so was an outcast for that reason alone. He spent his early years as a refugee, so he never got “in the groove” in a religious sense, where the promising young men were given special attention. He came from a poor family, and had to work to survive.
Not the background of someone who read and wrote in those days.

I think there is every reason to think Jesus was literate. It has already been mentioned that he wrote in the dirt. Then there is this from chapter 4 of Lukes gospel:

"16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”

Did he read it? He stood up to read He found the passage he wanted and he told them that the passage was fulfilled that day. Even though He closed the book all of them knew what passage he was referring to. The only way they could know it is if they heard Him read it.

As for john being “the disciple that Jesus loved” there is ample scripture proof for this. Consider these passages:

Joh 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

This occurred at the Crucifixion and the only disciple present was John

then there is this passage where Jesus tells Peter:

John 21:18-25 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”
20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

John did die but he was the only Apostle to escape martyrdom. But he identifies himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

 

[steve53]

I think the correct translation is that Jesus was drawing symbols in the sand. And Luke is a contentious Gospel- not written by an eyewitness. Took stories from many sources.

 

[Bible_Truth]

As for john being “the disciple that Jesus loved” there is ample scripture proof for this. Consider these passages:

Joh 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

I don’t see how this qualifies as a proof. It is evidence that the beloved disciple took Mary into his home. However, the home was local: he took her in to his house ‘from that hour’. John the Apostle lived in Galilee. So far as the evidence goes, this is evidence against your view.

Proof would be something like the account of the high priest, perceiving that John the apostle was an unlettered man. If John were the beloved disciple, the high priest would have already known this, for the beloved disciple ‘was known to the high priest’.

This occurred at the Crucifixion and the only disciple present was John

It is only an assertion that this disciple was John the Apostle. Where is your evidence? The evidence is against it. Jesus told the twelve that they would all be stumbled because of him that night. They were no where to be found. The beloved disciple knew the high priest, and had no reason to fear, so he stayed with Jesus the whole time.

John did die but he was the only Apostle to escape martyrdom. But he identifies himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

Jesus prophesied that the two sons of Zebedee would drink the cup of martyrdom. Papias confirms that John the Apostle was martyred, and his martyrdom is spoken of in ancient martyrologies of the church.
The John who died peacefully in Ephesus, the beloved disciple, was not the Apostle John.

 

[TheFollower]

There is in fact a theory that exists which proposes exactly this. After all, the “other disciple” was well known to the high priest (John 18:15)…

[BIBLEDRB]John 18:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Problem with this:

The Bible verse says “another disciple”. NOT “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

So it is any of the other 11, it could have been Judas. He WAS known by the high priest…
Plus, we don’t know any connection between the high priest and any of the other disciples.

As for the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, we have to cross out Judas. Why?

Judas hung himself when Jesus was on trial with Pontius Pilate.

Proof: [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 27:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 27:11[/BIBLEDRB]
The “disciple whom Jesus loved” was there after Jesus’ Resurrection.
[BIBLEDRB]John 21:20[/BIBLEDRB]

That’s all I will say for now.

God Bless.

 

[Bible_Truth]

The Bible verse says “another disciple”. NOT “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

That doesn’t work–John 20:2 identifies the ‘other disciple’ with the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’.

That’s why commentators are forced to do somersaults trying to explain how the son of Zebedee was known to the high priest.

Chrysostom

Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. And why doesn’t he name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name. But now why does he do this? He does it for the same reason.

Joel C. Elowsky, John 11–21, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4b, 276 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).

So also Jerome, who says that it was the beloved disciple, and that he was known to the high priest on account of his ‘noble birth’.

 

[ItIsWritten]

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free eBook which presents the biblical evidence on this topic in a way which encourages Bible students to take seriously the biblical admonition, “prove all things” and to heed the many biblical warnings like, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”

It quotes nothing but scripture in order to help those who have a love of the truth to focus on facts found in the plain text of scripture that are often overlooked when the authority of God’s word is put in subjection to the traditions of men which make void the word of God."

Truly, the evidence in the plain text of scripture can easily disprove the FALSE TEACHING (caps for emphasis) that the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was John, and that shows how easy it is for believers to be deceived when they rely on non-Bible sources to be their measure of truth on biblical issues.

Those who drink the Kool-Aid on ‘the John tradition’ have to point to non-Bible sources to defend their belief in the idea about John being “the disciple whom Jesus loved” because the Bible does not teach that idea. In fact, it refutes it at every turn. (Even the unbiblical assertion that assumes all of the disciples of Jesus were excluded from ‘the last supper’ except for “the twelve” cannot possibly justify teaching the John idea in the face of all of the biblical evidence to the contrary.) WHOEVER the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was, he could not have been John because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself – which the truth will never do, and God’s word is the truth.

So either one can honor the word of God -OR- they can promote the idea that says the unnamed author of the fourth gospel (i.e., “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) was John, but they cannot do both – because the authority of God is not honored when men make their own beliefs the measure of truth on biblical issues. Scripture says what it says and no amount of the teachings of men can change the fact that scripture disproves the John tradition (and, for those who want to “prove all things” that evidence is presented for your consideration in the free eBook that is offered at www.TDWJL.com ).

 

[thistle]

Truly, the evidence in the plain text of scripture can easily disprove the FALSE TEACHING (caps for emphasis) that the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was John, and that shows how easy it is for believers to be deceived when they rely on non-Bible sources to be their measure of truth on biblical issues.

Those who drink the Kool-Aid on ‘the John tradition’ have to point to non-Bible sources to defend their belief in the idea about John being “the disciple whom Jesus loved” because the Bible does not teach that idea. In fact, it refutes it at every turn. (Even the unbiblical assertion that assumes all of the disciples of Jesus were excluded from ‘the last supper’ except for “the twelve” cannot possibly justify teaching the John idea in the face of all of the biblical evidence to the contrary.) WHOEVER the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was, he could not have been John because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself – which the truth will never do, and God’s word is the truth.

So either one can honor the word of God -OR- they can promote the idea that says the unnamed author of the fourth gospel (i.e., “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) was John, but they cannot do both – because the authority of God is not honored when men make their own beliefs the measure of truth on biblical issues. Scripture says what it says and no amount of the teachings of men can change the fact that scripture disproves the John tradition (and, for those who want to “prove all things” that evidence is presented for your consideration in the free eBook that is offered at www.TDWJL.com ).

This thread has been dormant for several years. We are not to resurrect old threads but start new ones even to discuss the same topic.