Who is John the Beloved?

[7777777Now]

I thought john the baptist was the beloved. Can some one straighten me out here. If John the Beloved is not John the Baptist please let me know who he was.

Thanks!
James

 

[JeanneH]

Hi James,

John the beloved disciple is the John at the foot of the cross that Jesus tell to take Mary into his home. He is also the disciple that rested his head on Jesus’ breast at the last supper.
Hope this helps.
God Bless
JeanneH

 

[JimG]

John the beloved was one of the Apostles, the brother of James and son of Zebedee. John the Baptist was not an apostle. He was the son of Elizabeth and cousin of Jesus.

 

[7777777Now]

Wow…I can’t believe I didn’t know that. Goes to show you how under catechised I am. I must of gotten that one mixed up early in life and just held on to it for 20-25 years.

 

[Talmida]

He’s often called John the Evangelist (which means Gospel-writer) to distinguish him from the Baptist.

 

[lak611]

He’s often called John the Evangelist (which means Gospel-writer) to distinguish him from the Baptist.

He wrote the Gospel of John, 3 epistles (1, 2, and 3 John), and Revelation.

 

[IrishAm]

I have recently been using a small soft covered “white book” from the past Easter season for evening prayer. I believe it was published this year (2007) by a bishop in Saginaw, Michigan. In one entry he discusses how, although many people were taught the beloved disciple referred to the Apostle John, theologians now almost “universally” (whatever that means believe otherwise. The “one Jesus loved” was in fact another fairly minor follower of Jesus, who grew in holiness and was quite respected for his faith and authority in the early church. In his humility, at the time the Gospel of John was being written, he asked that his name never be used and the focus always be on Jesus and others more worthy.

I have never heard of this interpretation and wondered if it had any credibility at all.

Any thoughts?

(And this is my very first posting, so I hope it works!)

 

[Genesis315]

I have recently been using a small soft covered “white book” from the past Easter season for evening prayer. I believe it was published this year (2007) by a bishop in Saginaw, Michigan. In one entry he discusses how, although many people were taught the beloved disciple referred to the Apostle John, theologians now almost “universally” (whatever that means believe otherwise. The “one Jesus loved” was in fact another fairly minor follower of Jesus, who grew in holiness and was quite respected for his faith and authority in the early church. In his humility, at the time the Gospel of John was being written, he asked that his name never be used and the focus always be on Jesus and others more worthy.

I have never heard of this interpretation and wondered if it had any credibility at all.

Any thoughts?

(And this is my very first posting, so I hope it works!)

I’ve never heard that at all. I have heard that it refers literally to St. John and symbolically to all the faithful who are Our Lord’s beloved.

 

[scottm]

I have never heard of this interpretation and wondered if it had any credibility at all.

Any thoughts?

Ya, I have a thought. I thought that the writer of the Gospel of John identified himself as the “beloved disciple” in the next-to-last verse of the gospel!

 

[juliamajor]

In academia it is a rather controversial subject. When I went to Bible school(Catholic) I was taught and have read many times of the community of the beloved disciple.No- John doesn’t make references to his identity and in fact mentions John separately-Many scholars believe he was a very devoted disciple of John’s and carried his community through very rough times. The latest theory (besides garbage of the De Vinci Code ilk )is that the"disciple that Jesus Loved" was Lazarus!! This has been proposed in several biblical journals and I believe a commentary in Biblical archaeology might have mentioned it. It is pretty much well accepted in the biblical commentaries that St. john the Apostle was not the"beloved" and did not write “revelation”. The greek used in the gospel is a much finer quality then the Book of Revelation- which is considered pretty crude.Hope that helps.

 

[scottm]

It is pretty much well accepted in the biblical commentaries that St. john the Apostle was not the"beloved" and did not write “revelation”. The greek used in the gospel is a much finer quality then the Book of Revelation- which is considered pretty crude.

Real life story:
When my brother was a PhD grad student at Notre Dame a few years ago, he wrote an article for some such-or-other publication in his field. He gave an unsigned draft in two parts to his advisor to proof read. The advisor didn’t know who wrote the parts. The advisor praised Part 1 and heavily criticized Part 2, and was certain that different people wrote them because the words were different, the structure was different, blah blah blah, they were different.

But no, the truth was that my brother wrote both parts.

R.C. Sproul has talked about, on his radio show, his adventures in learning to read a foreign language while he was a doctoral student. (I think it was Dutch, but it doesn’t matter what language it was.) He made flash cards for all the vocabulary words in the first book that he had to read by a particular author. Then he made flash cards for all the new vocabulary words in the second book by the same author. The second pile was just as big as the first pile! But the books were written by the same person! How could there be brand-new vocabulary words when the same person wrote the books, huh?!?! And yes, the subject matter was the same.

And I can point to emails and internet posts and handwritten letters that I myself have written, which would appear to be written by different people because the words, grammar, etc etc etc are different. And so could you. And so could everyone.

The moral of the story is that “because the language is different” is no reason to conclude that different people wrote the letters. **It just doesn’t work in real life. It’s not representative of actual human life. **

Here’s another thought: Tradition is that John the Apostle is the “beloved disciple” and wrote those 5 books in the NT. If tradition is wrong, then what is our basis for trusting tradition on any other matter? **If we don’t even know who wrote our scripture, what do we know, eh? If I don’t even know who said this stuff, why should I believe it? **

The religion of Christianity is premised upon a claim of absolute truth. If, then, the people who started off my religion did not tell the truth, I shouldn’t be a Christian. I’m a hypocrite for being a Christian.

 

[sphilomena]

I’m with scottm. I’ll believe tradition that I’ve learned for many decades in the Church. The booklet IrishAm has from her bishop, sounds like more modernist revisionist thought.

 

[marymol]

Isn’t St. John The Evangelist also thought to be the youngest disciple … hence the one who probably related the best to The Fatherly Love of our Lord …The Lord who calls the apostles
’ children’ - at The Last Supper … and in response to the pleading of St.Phillip , said = " if you have seen Me , you have seen The Father…"

St.John - ’ the son of Thunder ’ - able to whet the deepest thirst of all human hearts - to behold the Face of The Father …

And our Lord , rightly pleased that His Mission , to reveal The Father and His glory - the depth of His love for us children - was becoming accomplished …

 

[IrishAm]

I waited to get home from work to find the exact reference. The book is “The Little White Book: Six minute reflections on the Resurrection Narratives according to John,” published by Little Books of the Diocese of Saginaw (MI) with the notation “This Easter booklet is based upon the writings of Bishop Ken Untener and put together by Catherine Haven, editor of the Little Books, with the help of Sr. Nancy Ayotte, IHM, director of the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd.” I haven’t a clue how modernist or revisionist the diocese is, because I dwell in the uber-traditional Arlington (VA) Diocese and like it that way. Everything else in the booklet, however, seems doctrinal --which is why this particular entry struck me as worth pursuing.

Anyway, the section in question is April 11, 2007, and reads as follows:

“Who is the ‘other disciple’?
At the Last Supper in John’s Gospel, a mysterious disciple is mentioned for the first time: 'One of the disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining at Jesus’ side." This is the first of eight appearances of the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (also called ‘the other disciple’) in John’s Gospel. Who is he?
Traditionally the Beloved Disciple was thought to be John the Apostle. But most Scripture scholars in recent times think that he was not John, but rather another disciple whose name is never given. There are various theories. Here is a condensed version of what many scholars today would say.
The Beloved Disciple was one of the disciples of Jesus. During the public ministry, although he was very close to Jesus, he played a minor role. He isn’t even mentioned in the other three Gospels.
Some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, this disciple was the founding father and leader of a Christian community in Ephesus, a coastal city in modern-day Turkey. This community looked upon him as an ideal disciple, someone to imitate.
Because he was a humble person, this unnamed disciple did not want his name included in the written story of Jesus and the author of the fourth Gospel repected that decision.”

 

[VociMike]

From John 21:

[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.

 

[juliamajor]

We don’t know who wrote the scripture except those who outright state it as in Pauline letter. the rest is tradition Johannine letters and Gospel may have been a group function and this is determined by a plethora of ways.How it was written? What is the syntax? How is language used and most importantly - what is the theology. That is how the can distinguish the writings of John of Patmos from the John of Jerusalem.a lot of things might change but why would you change your theology? Patristic traditions of who wrote the scripture are not always universal and were discussed and bandied back at forth.The problem is there are no originals to any books of the bible. OT or NT. They are copies of copies passed down for generations .The scriptures First appeared in oral Tradition then as time passed the became written. the oldest part of the NT are believed to be the Pauline epistles.First Gospel Mark around 60ish a.d.Mark, Matthew and Luke are the Synoptic gospels - John is off on it’s own with some references to the synoptics but magnificently on it’s own - John is the most theologically intense and dense of the Gospel- it’s also the most written about gospel.First of all there is Tradition and tradition.I guess the need to know is part of humanity’s yearning for knowledgeThe Fathers had it but apparently those who wrote the gospels didn’t feel the need for acknowledgement the most important thing was the message.Also remember there were literally hundreds of 'gospels"“letters” that made the rounds-why were these picked? Why where they used and given canonicity?I think it’s pretty obvious -discernment through the Holy SpiritJust as the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the scripture so was th “selection” discerned thru the Spirit. What was included in the canon came about after centuries of discussions-the Fathers did not take this lightly-they knew how important it was-and many things that were popular and edifying and sometimes used liturgically( the Shepherd of Hermas comes to mind) were thrown by the wayside .Our spiritual ancestors were in good Hands by relying on the Spirit-so are we.

 

[Evan]

a lot of things might change but why would you change your theology?

Have you ever looked at what your wrote in HS or College and said “I wrote that, what an idiot I was”. You change your theology, because you grow. You advance in wisdom. You learn better ways to express yourself. I think some scripture scholars don’t understand that people change.

Maybe part of (for example) Exodus was written when Moses was 50 but when he was 106 he went back and edited it and cleaned up some really awful stuff that he thought was good at 50.

On the other hand I have looked at some of the college stuff and it’s wonderful and I wonder where that guy went. I can’t write like that any more.

 

[juliamajor]

no not that radically- again moses writing Torah is tradition-Jewish tradition actually.Moses never says he wrote it again they are vastly different books-why do you all get so uptight over who wrote it- it’s very protestant of you- just like the earth was literally created in seven days that there isn’t a deeper meaning in the writings then what is stated.I hope your faith doesn’t rely on authorship.Moses didn’t receive the whole bible on Mt.Sinai-it wasn’t the KJV or DRV. God uses people as vehicles to spread His Words- but those vehicles weren’t robots- as one of my teachers said "God has more respect for His Creation then that- "free will and all that.Biblical Tran slations and Exegesis are not simple matters and as to guidelines I refer you to Pius Xii’s Dei Verbum