Why does the Gospel of John avoid naming these important things

[Usagi]

I’ve read a fairly good argument (from Protestant sources) that the Beloved Disciple is Lazarus rather than John, though that gets a little weird since Lazarus is also mentioned by name elsewhere in the Gospel (but, unlike Mary Magdalene, never in the same scene as the Beloved).

If I recall the main points correctly, they are as follows:

1. Lazarus was a disciple, but not an Apostle, of Jesus, and it is explicitly stated (when Jesus weeps at Lazarus’ tomb) that Jesus loved him.
2. The Beloved Disciple is said to have connections with the High Priest’s family, which makes more sense for Lazarus (an affluent man from Bethany, near Jerusalem) than for John (a fisherman from distant Galilee).
3. The “cover name” is presumed to be the result of people trying to assassinate Lazarus, since he is walking proof of one of Jesus’ greatest miracles.
4. It adds an extra bit of explanation of the rumors of the Beloved Disciple’s immortality, mentioned at the end of the Gospel, if the Beloved is a man already known to have died and returned.

I still tend to prefer the traditional identification of John as the Beloved, but I have to admit those are not bad points.

Usagi

 

[JohnR77]

The Gospel of John

1. the name of the mother of Jesus.

John, the writer of the fourth Gospel, is packing a ton of information into relatively a few words. In my opinion, John is giving Mary the deserved compliment, that she is the “Woman.”
See

defendingthebride.com/ma4/women.html

1. the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

A person’s name is meant to capture the deepest essence of who a person is. Besides being humble, yes humble, John is driving home the point that the most important thing he could say about himself, and by extension, the most important thing anyone can say about him or herself is that they are one “whom Jesus loved.”
That is not being proud. That is being honest.

The Author and Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel *

[Response of the Biblical Commission, May 29, 1907]

2110 Question I: Whether from the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church coming down from the second century,… it is demonstrated by such strong historical proof that John the Apostle and no other is to be recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel, that the reasons adduced by critics in opposition by no means weaken this tradition?–
**Answer: In the affirmative.
**
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php

New #
Resp. Commiss. de re Biblica, sous saint Pie X, 29 mai 1907

3398 2110 Qu. 1: Utrum ex constanti, universali ac … tam solido argumento historico demonstretur Ioannem Apostolum et non alium quarti Evangelii auctorem esse agnoscendum, ut rationes a criticis in oppositum adductae hanc traditionem nullatenus infirment?
Resp.: Affirmative.

1. the institution of the Eucharist.

Is there any scholarly hypothesis about why John …?

And here is the MOST important thing I have to say. Yes, there has just been published a scholarly work on this subject. This question has bothered scholars for two thousand years.

Yes, the Christian community already had the synoptic Gospels with the institutional narrative during the Last Supper. So, it wasn’t NECESSARY to include it. Yet, that excuse still leaves people almost wishing it had been included. While this reason excuses the omission, it still doesn’t fully answer WHY it is not there.

Now, you can read the answer in a book that was endorsed on the front cover by Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, who is the head of the Apostolic Signature

defendingthebride.com/icon/index.html#bk

.

 

[ericc]

The Gospel of John is well known for being very different in nature from the three synoptic Gospels. But one thing has puzzled me about John for a while. There are four things, in particular that are very important to the Church that John takes pains to avoid:

1. the name of the mother of Jesus.
2. the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved.
3. no command to baptize nor formula for it
4. the institution of the Eucharist.

The last is particularly troubling, in that John spends so much time talking about Baptism and the Eucharist indirectly. To those who believe that the Gospel of John proves that these are merely symbols and that John must be interpreted symbolically, my only response is that the other Gospels, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, and the tradition of the earliest Church all contradict that hypothesis strongly. I am unaware of the early Church fathers treating John as if it was purely symbolic. Nor does such symbolism explain John not mentioning the other two in my list.

Is there any scholarly hypothesis about why John would be so explicit about so many other things but deliberately, in my mind, leave out these four things?

Church Father Eusibius Book III Chapter 24 The Order of the Gospels have this to say about John’s Gospel.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.
12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.

From the above statements, John appears to selectively covers areas missed by the other 3 Gospels. Hence items 3 and 4 need not be mentioned.

Items 1 and 2 are more difficult to addressed as I do not know whether there are circumstances where it would be wise not to do so. Some posters mentioned naming specifically may put those people at risk.

Item 1 doesn’t seem to create much of a problem. After all John took in Mary as his mother as instructed and lived with him. Would it have been impolite/improper to named her? I don’t know but again we know his gospel was to cover what the other 3 gospels are missing. Mary was mentioned adequately in the other gospels and perhaps he saw no need to add further except for the wedding at Cana. Interestingly, at the wedding, he quoted Jesus saying “O woman,what have you to do with me”.

Item 2 as another poster indicated would tantamount to claiming a special privilege/status and could be deemed impolite in that society/time to claim such status. Remember in Mat 20:20 when Andrew/James mother requested her sons to sit at Jesus right/left in his kingdom, they got a good ribbing from the other apostles. Indeed, in some societies, it would be more practical to get a third party to make such a statement and for the intended person to humbly acknowledge it. Note that the other 3 gospel writers did not used this term “disciple that Jesus loved” but only in John. I always wondered whether John was the youngest of the apostles and that Big Brother always watch out for the youngest. Those who are Asian may know the cultural norms of such societies. Others may ignore my ramblings