I always have the same question in my mind as I read the passage from the Gospel of John 19:
”25 Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!”
27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.”
According to text of this version of the four different crucifixion stories, there were no male disciples beside Jesus’ cross. There were Jesus’ mother, Jesus’ mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Only women.
Were there any male disciples present? Why are they not mentioned here?
So who was actually the disciple that took Mary into his (or is it her?) home?
The gospels tell that Jesus had four brothers. Why none of them? Or was it one of them?
The disciple is supposed to be john son of zebedee.
Tradition has it that John went and preached in Ephesus. There is a house in the city still said to have belonged to Mary.
The brothers of Jesus seem to have remained in Jerusalem and Revelation gives the impression of Mary have fled after the crucifixion.
“She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God”
Interested parties might want to investigate scholar Hugo Mendez’s speculations on the subject of the nature of the “beloved disciple”. Prof Mendez was invited by Prof Ehrman to submit a series of posts on this very site beginning ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
My thoughts have been colored somewhat by my reading of Robyn Faith Walsh’s work which I am discussing elsewhere. It’s possible to see the character of the “beloved disciple” as a literary creation. Chavez has a take on how that character might have functioned.
This is an interesting passage. I never noticed the author lists the women but not the Beloved Disciple yet then goes on to have Jesus address that character as though he was there along. Thank you for pointing that out, Stratovaari. I’m not sure what’s behind that, but Robert is right: the Greek text does not allow that the disciple whom Jesus loved (ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) is one of the women mentioned at the cross. He’s a male.
brenmcg is also right: tradition has it that the Beloved Disciple is John. But I find that tradition unpersuasive. Yet Eusebius bought it. You should read his History of the Church in that regard. It’s a riot.
My problem with Mendez’s conclusions is textual. I still have trouble accepting that the gospel of John was composed by one person. John sure looks like multiple sources somewhat messily combined. There even seem to be differing Christologies contained in the book. This is part of the impetus for the old view of a hypothetical Johannine community behind the gospel. It’s a shame that Prof Walsh concentrates almost exclusively on the synoptics in her book. John presents real problems for almost any view.
I think the existence of some sort of redactor/editor is one of the sure things we can really say about the gospel of John. I agree about the lack of historicity although I would say that about all the gospels. Does Mendez discuss textual issues? Ehrman’s view is ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)