Loading...I have started a series of posts dealing with the authorship of the Gospels – specifically, why they were eventually named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. My first point, in my previous post and in this one, is that the books are completely anonymous. Their authors never divulge their names. Eventually I may want to address the question of why that is. But for now, my point is that despite what people might commonly think, the books are anonymous.
I pointed out yesterday that even though the author of Luke does not tell us his name, he does write in the first person (“I”/ “we”) in the opening of his Gospel. That never happens in either Matthew or Mark, but it does happen again in the Gospel of John. In fact, it is widely claimed – sometimes even by scholars who should know better – that the author identifies himself as the “beloved disciple” who appears several times in the Gospel of John, and only in this Gospel.
On a number of occasions the author of the Gospel refers to the “discipline whom Jesus loved” (for example, John 13:23; 20:2-4) This person is generally known as the “beloved disciple.” Who is he? And did he write the Gospel? Or did the author at least *claim* to be this beloved disciple?
In a later post I may deal with the question of who the beloved disciple may have been. (Traditionally, of course, he has been thought to be John the son of Zebedee; I will explain how that Identification came about – also in a later post.) For now, I want to deal with the question of whether this author of the book is claiming to be this disciple. There are two passages that readers have typically taken to indicate that in fact that is what the author is claiming.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
I will look forward to (and hope you do remain interested in such a post) your thoughts on who the “Beloved Disciple” might have been. If it happens to differ from Raymond Brown’s thoughts on this question in “The Community of the Beloved Disciple”, I hope you won’t mind addressing his conclusion.
I wish I had a definitive answer!
I think that the beloved disciple iş Paul. Writer of Gospel Of John hides his name because he writes this book for Anti-Paulian Christian Community .Is there any chance for I am right?
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the beloved disciple is actually the *enemy* in the Gospel of John that the author is attacking? No, I’m afraid that doesn’t seem to be at all right.
I heard a narrative where the beloved deciple may have been Jesus lover? Is this a real possibility?
It’s not at all clear that the Beloved Disciple wsa a historical figure, or if he wasy, whether anything said about him in John (the only NT book that mentions him) is accurrate. So the question really has to be whether the author who told the stories about him meant us to thnk they were lovers, and for that I’d say most definitely not.
Terrific post. I would like to learn more about why the authors did not identify themselves? Were they afraid of being persecuted so they hid their identities?
No, I don’t think that was it — no one was persecuted, so far as we know, for writing a book. I’ll give what I imagine to be the reason eventually in a post.
It’s quite noticeable that when you read the gospel accounts of Jesus’s ministry, they read like an adventure story or novel with actual quotes from many of the characters and colourful descriptions . Whereas when you read something like Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, it’s all very matter of fact. The more I re-read the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John from a non Christian perspective the more it would appear to be coming from someone’s imagination, the Matthew 27:52 line about dead souls coming out from their tombs and walking among the many, being a prime example.. really???
@ Bonnie43uk, In Matthew 27:52-53 we trustfully read: “And the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
I believe that the above two verses report something which never took place and therefore those lies are used to divert our attention from the Lord, because it is impossible for it to have occurred before or after the resurrection of the Lord, for we read in 2Timothy 2:18 about: “Men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.”
In Acts 2:29, Peter says, “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” So Peter effectively says some time after the day of Pentecost that the body of David is still in his tomb (Confirmed by Acts 2:30-36) It is reasonable for us to assume that if the body of King David did not qualify for that alleged resurrection we can be certain that it never took place.
In addition to that, the numbers of anomalies that those two verses contain are also an indication that our Lord never dictated them because:
1) The resurrection of the body will take place on the last day (Read John 11:24, 1Corinthians 15:52, and all of chapter 20 of Revelation.)
2) It should be obvious to anyone that even if those verses in Matthew were true, they are written in the wrong place and therefore are not in harmony with what was actually taking place. Jesus had just died and the alleged resurrection supposedly took place after His resurrection, so why write it there?
3) If the alleged resurrection was after the Lord’s resurrection, why is it conveniently connected with the strange natural things that were happening in relation with the Son of God’s death? (Earthquake etc.)
4) Also if those verses were true, the resurrection of our Lord with His heavenly body would become one of many and no longer one of a kind.
5) Any Christian writer would have known that Jerusalem was no longer the “Holy City” because the presence of God was no longer in the temple (read Matthew 23:38) and the city’s destruction had been foretold (read Mark 13:2).
6) We should also consider that the above verses do nothing to advance the knowledge of God but they are used extensively by the untaught to promote their own useless fantasies. Those who do not understand the Word preach best through their fleshly imagination by abandoning themselves to colourfully speculate what Jesus supposedly did while He was dead in the tomb.
2 Corinthians 10:4-5 says it all: “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the Knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”
In other words, speculations are to be treated with the contempt they deserve, but the truth is supported by a variety of thought (or Scriptures) which are relevant to our every day lives and behaviour pleasing to Christ.
Can’t wait for you to divulge who the loved disciple might have been Bart!
Reading 21:24 NRSV it seems to me we could also interpret this as indicating that it is the beloved disciple who has written these things that Jesus did, perhaps with the help of the community who also afirm the truth of his testimony.
On the other hand, couldn’t this just be a device to add authority to the book – the kind of thing that you have pointed out elsewhere happened quite often.
Ben Witherington’s talk at the BAR conference will be “Who was the beloved disciple?” and I know James Tabor thinks it was James, the brother of Jesus. Is there a “majority view” candidate or just a wide range of guesses?
The traditional view is that it is John the son of Zebedee. That’s still the view of most evangelicals and other conservative Christians. I’m not really sure what the majority view is among critical scholars.
Dr. Ehrman, the above post shows that the beloved disciple gave a testimony to Hellenist followers and scribes who could not write in the first person because that would not be the case and who wrote the beloved disciple’s account in Greek.
Second, the writing of the Gospel of John is said to date from 90 to 95 C.E. after Josephus’ Wars of the Jews (75 C.E.) When the Gospel of John refers to Simon Peter dying but John living, it is a reference to two of the leading zealots who revolted against Rome (66-73 C.E.). Their names were Simon and John.
War of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 9, Section 4, 433-434: John wanted food together with his brethren. He begged the Romans for their right hand for his security. He was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. (John lives.) Simon surrendered, reserved to be bound (brought where he did not want to go) for the triumphal march in Rome and then slain. (Peter dies.)
Rome is known for absorbing the religion of their opponents. When Rome absorbed Messianic Judaism, it absorbed the gospels and grafted itself (the Flavian empire) onto the gospels. The above is evidence of that.
The first Flavian emperor, Vespasian, took on the Star Prophecy (Star of Bethlehem Prophecy). The second Flavian emperor, Titus, took on the Son of Man coming in glory in the clouds after a great tribulation, the Jewish Revolt; and, his triumphal arch shows him in clouds. The third Flavian emperor, Domitian, is all over the Book of Revelation: Living God (he deified himself instead of being done so after death by the Senate), Alpha and Omega (he was the first and last Flavian emperor—after he murdered Clement, he knew his succession would go to a non-Flavian), he rode a white horse, his priests wore gold crowns and white robes, he killed a famous woman for sexual immorality, revelation speaks of a woman killed for sexual immorality. All three of the Flavian emperors grafted Jesus. Jesus is attached to all three. The resurrected Jesus who speaks of Simon Peter and John is Titus who sealed the fates of the two leading zealots of the Jewish Revolt.
Have you taken a look at the work of Dennis MacDonald particularly in relation to the Gospel of Mark?
Yes, he’s very smart and has a very clever thesis. I’m afraid I don’t go along with it, but it’s certainly thought provoking.
There’s also Russel Gmirkin’s work as well as Bruce Louden’s that contribute to this line of thinking.
In this and the other gospels, it seems clear that there are competing traditions reacting to each other, not necessarily texts but the traditions which from their very origin were in extremely close proximity and would have immediately been influencing and competing with each other. I don’t get the impression that scholars feel this way yet many narratives from all of the gospels give this appearance. Do scholars feel the beloved disciple for example is this community’s way of authenticating their traditions in contrast to the traditions of Peter?
That’s a commonly held view, yes.
“The disciple whom Jesus loved” has always seemed to be an odd description to me. Wouldn’t Jesus have loved ALL his disciples? (Well, possibly not so much with Judas…).
One of my favorite songs of all time
Beloved disciple prob would agree
One thing remains ( radio version )
Passion ft Kristian Stanfill
Listening to it loud with a good glass of wine is best for me
Just blogging is all
Frankly, I’m befuddled. It seems when interpretations hinges on words (the use of “disciple” and “we”) and given from what I’ve read errors in translations keep popping up, authors (whoever they are) insert their own biases, how are we to ever really know? (Need to educate myself more. I have many of your books now).
About John 19, there’s another part I’ve wondered about:
26: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
(edit: ok, we have the beloved disciple here identified)
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.
(edit: ok, he spoke to him and the same disciple took his mother into his home)
28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst.
(edit: ummm…what? This beloved disciple was with his mother in his home. I am not fantastic in Greek, but this is a very clear usage of a time phrase: καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας, (away) from that period of time (presumably hour). It doesn’t imply he came back; it explicitly says the opposite; that he went away to be with her in his home for the rest of the day. If this is the same person who is the witness, how could he have been in two places at once?)
Who is this beloved disciple, then? Or am I missing something?
I’m not quite sure how you’re reading it. The verse is saying that she moved in to live in the home of the beloved disciple after the crucifixion down to the present day. The identity of the beloved disciple is much debated among scholars.
Yeah, I realized I was missing that whole angle after I posted. Thanks for the clarification.
“In a later post I may deal with the question of who the beloved disciple may have been.”
Did you ever post your thoughts on who the beloved disciple may have been? I did not see anything. Who do you think he may have been?
Don’t think I did! Maybe it’s because I haven’t decided yet, after all these years…. (Was he a real person?)
Ah! I didn’t consider that he probably was not a real person.
If he was not a real person, then do you have an idea of why the writer included him in his gospel?
If he wasn’t a real person, he would be the “ideal” disciple.
Hi,
I just watched a talk by Richard Carrier on Youtube, where he claims that the disciple whom Jesus loved was “his boyfriend”. In other words, that Jesus was gay. He points to the fact that he rests his head on Jesus’s bossom at the last supper and that Jesus instructs the virgin Mary to take him as her own son when Jesus is gone. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Thank you!
Ha! Of course he does….
He does seem rather hostile towards Christianity so I suspect a little bias on his part. Does that mean you do not believe there is much of a basis for his claim? Of course we can never know for certain (and it shouldn’t be that important, on the other hand considering the position of the Church on this issue, it would be a bomb shell…)
Yes, that’s what I mean. And yes, it’s just a rather silly attempt at a bombshell. (How much scholarship would it take to come to that conclusion? “Hey, Jesus is with all guys! They’re hanging out! One of them is leaning on his breast! Probably sighing deeply. And Jesus is deeply in love with him! Hey — what about that!!)
DR Ehrman, In Gospel of John, it seems, that Jesus knows what Judas is going to do to him. Or I might confuse it with another gospel, but I think it was John’s.
Also Judas doesn’t kill himself in John. Could Beloved disciple be Judas?
Thank you
In all the Gospels Jesus knows what Judas will be doing, and he kills himself in only one of them (Matthew). If you read through Hohn’s narrative you’ll see that teh author differentiates between Judas and the beloved disciple.
Dr. Ehrman:
If you have posted about this matter, I apologize for not finding it yet via post or comment. As per John 20-21, the transition between the two chapters is a bit odd. It seems quite possible that John 21 was a later edition to the piece and not original to the text at all, given that there seems to be a conclusion, and then, “afterward…” That would render “the beloved disciple” more speculative even to identify the author of the Gospel in any form. Do all (earliest) manuscripts include John 20-21 as we see in our final edition? Could it have been edited at given stages of development or completed by a later hand? What are your thoughts? Thank you, as always for your interaction. I haven’t commented in some time, but be advised “social distancing” allows for plenty of time to read/research.
Yes, John 21 is normally seen as an addendum, written after the beloved disciple himself had died in teh community.j It is indeed a rough transition, and ch. 21 probably comes from a different hand. Or at least the same hand writing much later….
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I am new to your blog and I am enjoying your scholarly writings and the
comments.
I hope you and your family are well during this covid19 situation.
Thanks. So far things are AOK.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, sorry for commenting on such an old post, but this seems somewhat relevant. Have you ever come across the idea that the ending of John was actually originally the ending of Mark? I’m new to all this stuff and came across Evan Powell’s argument here: http://www.historical-jesus.com/peculiar-endings.html
It’s rather interesting but I know nothing about his credibility. Thank you.
It doesn’t work for lots of reasons, but one of them is that the writing style is completely different. Not the same author.
Thanks Dr., I was thinking the same thing – although I figured it could be the case that John’s author was taking an earlier story about Jesus’ appearance at the shore and tossing the Beloved Disciple into it to tie things together. Do you think that might be the case (in other words, that it’s not necessarily taken from a lost ending to Mark, but that the last chapter in John is a later addition based on some other Jesus tale that isn’t in the other gospels)? It does seem rather incongruent.
Yes, ch. 21 of John is definitely from a different source from the rest of the Gospel. It just wasn’t from Mark — but from somewhere else.
Hey Dr Ehrman, what are your thoughts on the beloved disciple being Judas?
This thought initially occurred to me because in Matthew 26:25, Judas in a different manner than the beloved disciple in John essentially asks Jesus who it is that will betray him. He course, only asks specifically about himself though rather than in general as done in John 13:25
The flow of events of the question of who will betray Jesus in Matthew flows interestingly in parallel to John given that the question is asked and then bread is broken vs bread given to Judas.
I may be misunderstanding John 21:22-23 but is it possible that Peter was curious about the death of the beloved disciple because the disciple was Judas and what he has coming for him would be of interest since he betrayed Jesus.
Additionally, although probably the weakest argument, Jesus in Matthew and Luke did preach of loving your enemies, so it didn’t seem impossible that Judas could be the loved disciple.
This idea requires conflating the accounts together but I thought it may be an interesting idea nevertheless.
Thank you!
The beloved disciple appears only in the Gospel of John, and there he is clearly differentiated from Judas in 13:21-30.
Dr. Ehrman,
I thought I had posted these questions below, but apparently I didn’t.
1. Are there any “realistic” theories on who *the author* was referring to when he spoke of “the beloved disciple?” (Not talking about Lazarus, Mary, or so on).
2. From my understanding, when referring to the authorship of John, Irenaeus claims to have gotten his information from Polycarp who got it from John himself. I know you believe this was information just to bolster the tradition, but what info do you think discredits this? Why not trust this tradition?
3. Also, I was told that Clement of Alexandria (writing around the same time as Irenaeus) can be used as an independent source (from Irenaeus) to demonstrate that John wrote the Gospel of John. What are your thoughts? Do you think Clement of Alexandria was writing independently of Irenaeus when he said that John wrote the Gospel of John?
. 1. Lots. Himself, e.g. (i.e., John the son of Zebedee); the founder of John’s community (whether John or not); a fictional character. I prefer the final.
2. For one thing, if Polycarp died in 155 or so, and had “served Christ 86 years” as he says, then he must habe been born when John was in his mid 70s or so. It seems unlikely to me, given life expectancy at the time (not only for the non-elites, but especially for them) that Polycarp could have been a follower of John (even if he was just a mid-teenager at the time, John would have been in his 90s?)
3.I suppose Clement would be a decade or two later, but yes, according to Eusebius around 300 CE Clement said John wrote the spiritual Gospel. Clement was at a time when there was a lot of talk about authorship. He thought the letter to the Herews was written by Paul and appears to have accepted both the letter of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter as scriptural. A number of authorial traditions were floating around then.
disabledupes{6d872d64259f8ff5d0fc44eacbcf6c82}disabledupes