John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Bernard Muller »

I have that about the beloved disciple from my website:

"Where does that leave the "beloved disciple"?
This ex-priest may have provided (casually) some of the geographical, architectural & sociological details typical of GJohn (3:23,5:2-3,7,11:18,18:1,19:13?,17?). Also, he may have claimed (or was rumored) to be the host of the "Last Supper" (13:23-24), and years later, to witness the crucifixion (19:25-27,35?). Furthermore, as the companion of Peter, "John" placed him (but without clear identification) in the high priest courtyard (18:15-16) and at the empty tomb (20:2-8).
Why did "John" invoke the "beloved disciple"?
Because presbyter John, as an (alleged) eyewitness, was a dear Christian figure then in Asia minor. His death (as the believed last disciple alive) created a shock in the community (and likely outside also):
Jn21:22-23 "Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come [second coming], ..." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die."
After his death, it was suggested the "beloved disciple" wrote (most of) the gospel:
Jn21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.""
http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html

I take that presbyter John was the author (in two phases) of Revelation. The second phase was (mostly) written by him, after he became a Christian.

"The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the Diaspora Jews, so they would not lose their faith. The apocalypse gave also the opportunity for our ex-priest to vent off his considerable anger against the Gentiles and, above all, Rome. Then the author adopted Christianity and was later known as "Presbyter John" in Asia Minor, an elder/apostle based in Ephesus.
John claimed to have experienced the apocalyptic vision (or dream) and written about it during Emperor Galba's short reign (68-69 C.E.) (as explained later).
The imagery seems very much inspired by the O.T. books, such as 'Ezekiel', 'Isaiah', 'Zechariah', 'Joel' & 'Daniel'. And John's vision, which is full of (apocalyptic) precise details, is incorrect on many physical items, such as the origin of wind & rain, the shape of the earth, the size of great stars, etc., denoting a knowledge rather biblical & ancient but certainly not "revealed".
This apocalypse was added on, updated & christianized around 95 C.E. and, according to the majority opinion (& myself), released during the "tribulations" under Emperor Domitian."
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Stuart »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:54 pm
Stuart wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:20 pm
The Gospel of John is pretty funky with these over layers. Chapter 21 is regarded as an appendix to the Gospel.

My own read agrees that the assessment that the author of Chapter 21, or, more accurately the alter-ego of the author embedded in the story and his claim to authority, is 'the beloved disciple'. And it was necessary to claim his death was much later than expected because this version of John came out after the supposed author was thought already dead. Verse 20:4 is an example of where this disciple is shown to be very young as Peter legend already contained the idea that he was an old man.
Cheers Stuart. I think John 21:20-21 shows where there has been repetition, suggesting splicing of two versions, or a gloss has been added -
No question, especially chapter 20. Verses 20:24-29 are added just so Thomas can be at a closed door meeting. This is an especially clumsy interpolation. The "first ending" in verses 20:30-31 are more or less replicated in 21:24-25, but with different emphasis (clearly a different writer). Verses 20:1-9 is a tangle of traditions, extremely hard to separate all the conflicting themes. Same with 20:11-17, where Mary sees two angels who then seem to turn into Jesus whom she doesn't recognize. It's a complete mess. Verses 20:8-10 are clearly secondary, as unlike the rest of John it suddenly turns on Scripture, i.e., the same OT Jesus rejects repeatedly in the earlier part of the Gospel, ending with the disciples, you know kinda bored, so just went home, a real "nothing-burger." Weird stuff. Almost all later interpolations.

My big fat WAG is the original had Mary go to the tomb, because she is depicted in the early part of the gospel obsessed with the physical burial. Finds the tomb empty and is speaking to a stranger in dazzling white she takes for a grave attendant or gardener (I guess Romans had manicured graveyards like we do), but importantly doesn't perceive (οὐκ ᾔδει) that it is him, continuing the theme of John's rejection of Mariology. I am kind of on the fence about 20:19-23, slightly leaning toward original. The Holy Spirit comes back from verses 1:33 and 14:25. It suggests a Gnostic like passing of the torch, Jesus in secret to his Apostles, his death and resurrection being a baptism. 20:29 and some form of 20:30 probably ended it.

Everything else are secondary traditions and competing for ink space in the Gospel. I just find it shocking who clumsy the interpolations are compared to the deliberate composition in Luke.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:49 pm
Stuart wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:20 pm The term Rabbi appears to have come about no earlier than the very end of the 1st century, and more probably in the early 2nd century. Give it a generation or so to become widely known in the empire and you arrive at dates no earlier than the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century for Gospel usage, that is after Trajan. This is similar to LXX use of κυρίος for the tetragrammaton which also is not seen until the 2nd century, but the only form the NT knows. These are among the many signals that point toward 2nd century authorship for the Gospels and Paul.
I wouldn't be completely sure about that. The term "Rab" is used in Daniel 2:43, 5:11 for a "great one", captain or leader. In 5:11 it's a religious leader. That may be not far away from the use of "Rabbi" in the Gospels.

5:11 There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief (רַ֧ב - raḇ) of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners.

Yes the term is Babylonian in origin and means roughly "Lord" or "Master". But it's first use in the Mishnah is about the start of the 3rd century (yes applied to Yohanan ben Zakkai of the 1st century BC, but this could be applying a modern title to an ancient). Even as late as Bar Kokhba it seems to have been used only for the greatest sages and teachers like Akiva and his few rivals -- assuming the later references are not appellation of a later era in and of itself. Matthew's use is instructive to pin down the era here. Verses 23:7-8 indicate that the term has already undergone a change in usage with Matthew does not like, and is being applied to any old scholar (represented by Pharisee), and he does not like it -- this replaces salutations in the Marcionite form (and Luke, which has no instances of Rabbi). Matthew''s only other use is by Judas (26:25, 26:49), in the sense of Matthew's preference, to identify a great master or leader. This indicates we are some time after Bar Kokhba.

Mark 14:45 picked up Judas making this statement from John. He has Peter apply the term twice, in the transfiguration (9:5) in place of Matthew's Lord and Luke's "master", showing he is aware of the meaning; and again concerning the fig tree (11:21), which is a an expansion with Matthew's account which doesn't specify which disciple. Again the healed blind man (10:51) calls Jesus Rabbi in place of Lord we find in Matthew and Luke.

John thought it necessary to define the term (1:38) as he felt his audience would not know (which makes sense given his OT and Jewish Christian rejection). The term is applied by disciples to Jesus (3:2, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8), so clearly means teacher in the sense of great sage. John's disciples also apply it to their teacher (3:26). Mary's use at the tomb is out of place (20:16) and includes a second definition, that suggest it's added by some other hand (there are other here inconsistencies with John's presentation).

In the broadest terms, Matthew 23:7-8 tells us we are in a transition era where the term is being applied more broadly than just great sect leaders and sages. We are probably past the Bar Kokhba revolt, in an era where Jews are moving into Rabbinic Judaism. This cannot be 1st century.
Last edited by Stuart on Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:29 pm, edited 5 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Stuart wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:52 am Yes the term is Babylonian in origin and means roughly "Lord" or "Master". But it's first use in the Mishnah is about the start of the 3rd century (yes applie dto Yohanan ben Zakkai of the 1st century BC, but this could be applying a modern title to an ancient). Even as late as Bar Kokhba it seems to have been used only for the greatest sages and teachers like Akiva and his few rivals -- assuming the later references are not appellation of a later era in and of itself. Matthew's use is instructive to pin down the era here. Verses 23:7-8 indicate that the term has already undergone a change in usage with Matthew does not like, and is being applied to any old scholar (represented by Pharisee), and he does not like it -- this replaces salutations in the Marcionite form (and Luke, which has no instances of Rabbi). Matthew''s only other use is by Judas (26:25, 26:49), in the sense of Matthew's preference, to identify a great master or leader. This indicates we are some time after Bar Kokhba.

Mark 14:45 picked up Judas making this statement from John. He has Peter apply the term twice, in the transfiguration (9:5) in place of Matthew's Lord and Luke's "master", showing he is aware of the meaning; and again concerning the fig tree (11:21), which is a an expansion with Matthew's account which doesn't specify which disciple. Again the healed blind man (10:51) calls Jesus Rabbi in place of Lord we find in Matthew and Luke.

John thought it necessary to define the term (1:38) as he felt his audience would not know (which makes sense given his OT and Jewish Christian rejection). The term is applied by disciples to Jesus (3:2, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8), so clearly means teacher in the sense of great sage. John's Disciples also apply it to their teacher (3:26). Mary's use at the tomb is out of place (20:16) and includes a second definition, that suggest it's added by some other hand (there are other inconsistencies with John's presentation).

In the broadest terms, Matthew 23:7-8 tells us we are in a transition era where the term is being applied more broadly than just great sect leaders and sages. We are probably past the Bar Kokhba revolt, in an era where Jews are moving into Rabbinic Judaism. This cannot be 1st century.
Good analysis.

Luke avoided the term, Matthew disliked the term as a title for Jesus or Christian leaders, but Mark and John played with it. John 3:2 seems not far away from Daniel 5:11.

John 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

We may not agree about Marcan priority, but it seems quite clear that in GMark the term „Rabbi“ isn't an equivalent to „teacher“, but to „great one“ or „master“. My impression is that the use of „Rabbi“ in GMark is closer to Daniel than to the traditional rabbinical usage. Therefore I think that an anachronism can't be proved.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Stuart »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:04 pm Luke avoided the term, Matthew disliked the term as a title for Jesus or Christian leaders, but Mark and John played with it. John 3:2 seems not far away from Daniel 5:11.

John 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

We may not agree about Marcan priority, but it seems quite clear that in GMark the term „Rabbi“ isn't an equivalent to „teacher“, but to „great one“ or „master“. My impression is that the use of „Rabbi“ in GMark is closer to Daniel than to the traditional rabbinical usage. Therefore I think that an anachronism can't be proved.
My problem with your OT references is that the Greek does not say Rabbi. Daniel 5:11 LXX reads roughly
And their is a man of intelligence and with wisdom and surpasses all the wisdom of Babylon
καὶ εἶπε τῷ βασιλεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπιστήμων ἦν καὶ σοφὸς καὶ ὑπερέχων πάντας τοὺς σοφοὺς βαβυλῶνος
There is scant indication Mark knew the Hebrew Scriptures or used them. His knowledge of Rabbi is clearly not from here. He made a deliberate choice to use the word.

Your comment about Luke "avoiding" the term implies a deliberate decision on his part. But I think not. In the instances where Mark changed the word used from Lord to Rabbi, he is going against Matthew and Luke.Also another case with Peter using the term it is his own addition. I think you need to be consistent here in giving Mark editorial credit.

And no I do not see Mark as the first Gospel. But for this point it's irrelevant anyway. For the record, I am not convinced of anything regarding Mark except that Luke/Marcion and Matthew did not use his text (OK exceptions, a few parts of Luke deliberately took their story from Mark, but in my view this is post Marion, post Matthew, and even post John ... he had them all available). Mark wrote an unique Gospel that sat along side, but did not engage directly in the theological game of refutation of it's predecessors, unlike Matthew (to Marcion), John (to Matthew) or Luke (to all three). Mark had something else in mind, some other purpose. What I am not sure.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Charles Wilson »

Just a little note from the far weeds:

If you look at this - esp. John 21 - as something written about the Legions, a calm reading sets up nicely. The Book of Acts follows the star-struck 12th Legion (and Mucianus). Judas plays out as Cestius and Julius Caesar's Favorite, in its iterations through the Siege of Jerusalem, is the 10th Legion.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Joseph D. L. »

My own opinion is that the the original ending was 21:24, but that the initial outro was 20:30-31.

What's more, compare Codex Fuldensis. Luke 1:1-4, minus the naming of Theophilus--though it does indicate that is written for someone specifically--opens that codex. And when taken in tandem with John 20:30-31, would imply that the two complement one another. Indeed, look at the language of John:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

emphesis added

Which are not written in this book, but may be found elsewhere. Which goes well with Luke 1:1 saying that there were in fact numerous narratives--many texts--being composed. What may not be found in John/Diatessaron, may be found in those books.

But this would seem to infer that the Beloved disciple is not synonymous with the "I" of either Luke 1:1-4, or John 20:30-31, because this is someone compiling texts for the intended recipient (Theophilus, of Antioch), and not the original author, the Beloved disciple.

Who was the Beloved disciple?

My own conjecture is that it was originally James, the brother of John, but was relegated to the back, so to speak, when Peregrinus/Marcion reconceptualized the original text into his own. In other words, in the Gospel of the Hebrews, James is the first disciple to see the Risen Lord. In John 20:24-28, Thomas, the Twin, is the last to see the Risen Lord. Odd how James is never mentioned once. Only the "sons of Zebedee".

One other theory proposes that the maligned figure, Leucius Charinus, was the Beloved disciple (as his name roughly correlates to 'beloved disciple '). This, as it goes, reels in the tradition of Cerinthus writing Johannine texts. Cerinthus is itself not too far removed from Charinus.

But, take that as you will. I personally can't say, and prefer the -James/+Peregrinus answer.

Who was the compiler/editor?

Again, my conjecture is that it was the figure known as Hegesippus, otherwise called Polycarp, Papias, and... Leucius Charinus.

That may seem confusing at first, but let me clarify that I believe that the Polycarp of the Martyrdom, and Irenaeus' teacher, are not the same. One is based on Peregrinus, who died in 157-161 ad, and the other was active to the time of Eleutherius. (If you care, I believe Irenaeus was himself Zephyrinus, thus the gab between Peregrinus and Irenaeus would be too long and necessitates someone in between. That someone being Hegesippus).

And who was this man, really? Presuming Leucius Charinus to be a title than a proper name, I narrow it down to one or two people: Apelles/Apollos, and Damis/Demas, both followers of Peregrinus.

But this explains how Leucius Charinus can end up as the resurrected men in the Gospel of Nicodemus; and Nicodemus itself contains a derivative of Damis' name, and also as one of the men crucified with Christ. It also goes along with Damis being dubbed "The Assyrian," just as what Hegesippus and Papias were. But also the sort of signature of Polycarp within John 15.

Anyway, I hope some semblance of sense can be made from this.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:00 am Anyway, I hope some semblance of sense can be made from this.
Thanks, that does make sense, and it's really interesting. You've related various things laterally and globally, which is great.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Stuart wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:59 pm My problem with your OT references is that the Greek does not say Rabbi. Daniel 5:11 LXX reads roughly
And their is a man of intelligence and with wisdom and surpasses all the wisdom of Babylon
καὶ εἶπε τῷ βασιλεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπιστήμων ἦν καὶ σοφὸς καὶ ὑπερέχων πάντας τοὺς σοφοὺς βαβυλῶνος
I did neither claim that you can find the term „Rabbi“ nor that it can be found in the LXX. It’s the term „Rab“ and I linked to the Hebrew bible.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:49 pm
5:11 There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief (רַ֧ב - raḇ) of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners.

So far I know the view that the term „Rabbi“ is an anachronism in the Gospels (not only for the „time of Jesus“, but also for the usual date of GMark around 70 CE) assumes that this title was not in usage before 70 CE, probably not before 80 CE. It assumes that the title „Rabbi“ was a new creation among the Tannaim after the Jewish war, perhaps by Yohanan ben Zakkai, his colleagues and his students in Yavne. Some advocates of this view may believe that in regard to the title „Rabbi“ the „good“ rabbinical writings are more trustworthy :angel: than the „bad“ early Christian writings :evil: in regard to the title „apostle“ or the term „Christians“ (as in Acts 11:26). But I do not, because the rabbinical writings reflect mainly the later canonical usage of the title „Rabbi“.

I would not rule out that the origin of the title „Rabbi“ had a longer history and I tend to think it’s more likely that the term „Rab“ in the Hebrew bible is part of that history. It’s not only Daniel 5:11, but also titles or names as „Rab-Shakeh“ ("chief of the princes") and „Rab-Saris“ („chief of officers“) in 2 Kings 18 and Isaiah 36.

Stuart wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:59 pm There is scant indication Mark knew the Hebrew Scriptures or used them. His knowledge of Rabbi is clearly not from here. He made a deliberate choice to use the word.
For sure. But this „deliberate choice to use the word“ is not in the context of teaching, the Jewish law or scriptures. The use of „Rabbi“ in GMark does not reflect the assumed rabbinical context (transfiguration, healing of a blind, fig tree, Judas' betrayal).
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Charles Wilson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:52 am It assumes that the title „Rabbi“ was a new creation among the Tannaim after the Jewish war, perhaps by Yohanan ben Zakkai, his colleagues and his students in Yavne.
I believe you are close here. Good work. I don't know the whole story but with the internal markers in the NT as they are, it would be difficult to derive a coherent Structure of the NT without something like Zakkai's Group. Remember, Vespasian allowed Zakkai to live and Yavne was "sponsored". It's a giant leap to say that the NT came from Zakkai's Group (or Weitzman's Syriac Community) but there are just too many sub-plots in the data to deny some editorial organization from some Priestly Survivors (if Zakkai's Story is to be believed...).
I would not rule out that the origin of the title „Rabbi“ had a longer history and I tend to think it’s more likely that the term „Rab“ in the Hebrew bible is part of that history.
Acts 5: 34 - 39 (RSV):

[34] But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
[35] And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

Verses 38 - 39 give a very "reasoned" examination of the situation. I believe the Origin of Rabbinical Judaism is given in these verses. The Romans approved, "Gamaliel" is honored and the fix is in. Judaism is to survive but not in its Messianic Version. "Reasoned" analysis is OK so long as the Rabbi isn't found to be "Opposing God".

CW
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

Post by Bernard Muller »

In the broadest terms, Matthew 23:7-8 tells us we are in a transition era where the term is being applied more broadly than just great sect leaders and sages. We are probably past the Bar Kokhba revolt, in an era where Jews are moving into Rabbinic Judaism. This cannot be 1st century.
But that transition era happened before Josephus' Antiquities was completed in 93 CE:
XVIII, I, 3: "... on account of which doctrines, they [the Pharisees] are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they [the people] do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction [of the Pharisees/rabbis]; insomuch the cities gave great attestations to them on account to their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also ..."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply