We are told in John 21:24 that the author of the gospel is the disciple whom Jesus loved, who leaned on his bosom at the last supper. The line “we know his testimony to be true” indicates further that the identity of this disciple was known by the initial readers of the gospel. Matthew’s gospel, not John’s, can be used to discover this hidden identity, beginning with Mt 2:18 “A voice is heard in Ramah … Rachel weeping for her children …”.
In Matthew, Jesus is presented as the new Moses bringing the new covenant, and the 12 disciples are the new 12 sons of Israel who will “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes”. If the disciples are the new 12 sons then the question they themselves will have asked is “which disciple is which new son”? Matthew tells us who John along with his brother James
were claiming to be.
Matthew 2:18 “Rachel weeping for her children … ” quotes Jeremiah 31:15 and is a prefigurement of Matthew 20 where the prophesy of Jeremiah 31 will be fulfilled. This is the procession and entry into Jerusalem – Jer 31:6 “let us go up to Zion”, Matthew 20:18 “we are going up to Jerusalem”. Ramah, just outside Jerusalem where Jeremiah gives us “Rachel weeping for her children …”, Matthew 20:20-28 gives us a mother’s request for her sons – James and John. She asks that one be allowed to sit on the right and the other the left of the lord in his kingdom.
The tension with the other disciples is made clear, Mt 20:24 “When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers”; and the claim is obvious – the brothers James and John are to be the new Joseph and Benjamin, the favorites of Israel. James the elder of the two is to be Joseph, who Gen 37:8 “will rule over his brothers”, and John is to be Benjamin,
the “son of my right hand”.
This tension with the brothers’ claims is seen elsewhere in the synoptics; Jesus is said to call them “sons of thunder” in Mark and to rebuke them when they offered to call down fire from heaven in Luke. It is absent only in the gospel of John.
This gospel give us the disciple whom Jesus loved and who leaned on his bosom at the last supper. To find the symbolism here we must go to Deuteronomy 33 – the farewell blessings of Moses to the tribes. Deut 33:12 gives us Moses’ blessing to the younger of Rachel’s children; “About Benjamin he said, Let the beloved of the Lord rest secure in him, for he shields him all day long, and the one the Lord loves rests between his shoulders”. John son of Zebedee, the new Benjamin beloved of the lord who rests between his shoulders, is the disciple of John 21:24.
The same chapter of Deuteronomy gives us one more member of the new 12.
Deut 33:8-10 “About Levi he said … he watched over your word and guarded your covenant. He teaches your precepts to Jacob and your law to Israel.”
Luke and Mark give this honorific title to the tax collector in their version of the calling of Matthew. Matthew the tax-collector, the first to write down the new law of the new Moses.
Robert said
You have not provided internal evidence for identifying the author of the gospel of John, but rather some very convoluted intertextual associations, or perhaps biblical theology at its worst.
I think a lot stands on how old the idea of there being twelve disciples is and whether or not the description of the disciple who wrote John was intended to be decipherable by the early readers of the gospel.
If the followers of Jesus during his lifetime really did consider there to be a select twelve who would be the new judges the twelve tribes of israel then its natural to believe theyd think about who was associated with which tribe. Matthew 20 is evidence the brothers James and John considered themselves the new Joseph and Benjamin and the likeness of the description of the disciple in John 21:24 to Benjamin in Deut 33:12 is pretty strong (Its been remarked upon before)
Robert said
As for the author of the gospel of Matthew, which you mistakenly believe to be the first gospel written, why do you suppose both Mark and Luke would have supposedly changed the name of this disciple to Levi? Independently, or was Mark or Luke dependent on the other?
I think Luke was written second and Mark had access to both Matthew and Luke.
The idea will have developed that Matthew is the new Levite writing down the “logia of the Lord” as Papias tells us. Luke and Mark would both have been aware of this honorary title and given it Matthew in their version of the calling of Levi. Whats more Luke then needs to place this calling back before the sermon on the mount (Matthew has it after). Mark can been seen to be following Luke’s ordering here as he Mark has no sermon on the mount to push the calling back in front of.
.
Stephen said
I think Luke was written second and Mark had access to both Matthew and Luke.Interesting. What makes you think this is true?
This is just the griesbach hypothesis necessary to explain why matthew and luke rarely agree against Mark. (if you have ruled out markan priority).
Also, Luke adds a new story to Matthew about driving out an impure spirit in chapter 4 and moves Matthew’s healing of Simon’s mother-in-law (from Matthew 8) to go alongside it. The problem here is that he’s moved this story back before the story of Jesus actually meeting Simon – which comes in the following chapter. Mark follows Luke in adding the impure spirit story and in moving the Simon’s mother-in-law story but corrects for the placement of Jesus meeting Simon (moving it back before these two stories). If Mark was written first Luke moving the meeting of Jesus and Simon from the the start of these two stories to after them is inexplicable.
Luke and Mark, in contrast to Matthew, place the appointing of the twelve apostles on a mountainside. Mark’s placement of this account makes no sense – in three short paragraphs in chapter 3 he places Jesus by a lake, then up a mountain, then has Jesus enter a house! Luke’s placement does makes sense – his appointing of the 12 takes place immediately before his version of the sermon on the mount (where Jesus then descends with the disciples to give the sermon on the plain). Mark is most likely following Luke here.
In Mark 5 and Luke 8 we have their version of the demon possessed man. Mark, like Luke, tells us that after Jesus healed the man he was found by the people “dressed and in his right mind”. The problem for Markan priority here is that only Luke began the story by telling us the demon possessed man hadn’t worn clothes for a long time. Mark has changed this part to “no one could bind him, not even with a chain” but forgot to likewise change the ending. Matthew never mentions clothing in his account so Mark most likely got this from Luke.
Robert said
So do you think Luke was dependent upon the gospel of Matthew? If so, why do you think that?
Almost all of the reasons given for Luke being dependent on Mark apply equally well to Luke being dependent on Matthew.
Also the large agreement of Matthew and Luke outside Markan material is generally explained by positing a lost Q. Given that I think Matthew was written before Mark this large agreement naturally becomes evidence for Luke’s use of Matthew.
Even without dispensing with Markan Priority Mark Goodacre gives plenty of evidence for Luke’s use of Matthew.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A clear one being:
It is revealing that this phenomenon also occurs in double tradition (Q) material, and always in the same direction, in favour of Luke’s use of Matthew. Take the Parable of the Talents / Pounds (Matt. 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). Matthew has three servants throughout. Luke, on the other hand, has ten. But as the story progresses, we hear about ‘the first’ (19.16), ‘the second’ (19.18) and amazingly, ‘the other’ (o eteroV, Luke 19.20). Luke has inadvertently betrayed his knowledge of Matthew by drifting into the story-line of his source
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
You’ve deleted part of my post. Is that a tacit acknowledgment that no amount of fanciful speculation can turn texts from Deuteronomy, Mark, and Matthew into internal evidence for the author of the gospel of John?
Once we clear that up, I will try to help you correct your other errors.
Well no, ive given what I think is internal evidence from the gospels for the authorship of matthew and john.
Robert said
What exactly is your internal evidence from the gospel of John that his ‘beloved disciple’ should be identified with John, the son of Zebedee???
John 21:24 claims that the disciple whom Jesus loved and leaned back on his bosom at the last supper, is the disciple who wrote the gospel. And furthermore that this description would be decipherable by the early readers/hearers of the gospel.
Referencing a disciple as the one who leaned back on Jesus’s bosom is also more likely to be an allusion rather than a literal description.
A disciple who went around calling himself the one whom Jesus is loved, is likely to have caused tension with the other disciples.
Robert said
This is internal evidence that the gospel of John contains a character called the beloved disciple who it is claimed is the author of at least part of the gospel. It is not internal evidence that either this character or purported author should be identified with John the son of Zebedee. You really don’t see that?
I agree, the gospel of John on its own can’t be used to identify John of Zebedee as its author but must be used in conjunction with Matthew.
Here’s the structure of the argument.
Gospel of John claims its author has distinguishing characteristic ‘A’
Gospel of Matthew claims John son of Zebedee has distinguishing characteristic ‘A’
Robert said
brenmcg said
I agree, the gospel of John on its own can’t be used to identify John of Zebedee as its author but must be used in conjunction with Matthew. …Hence not internal evidence. Glad you see that now.
Its a combination of evidence internal to Matthew and evidence internal to John – is it just that the evidence is not fully internal to John that you’re criticising?
Robert said
Luke has very good reasons to rearrange the order of some of these stories, as I believe I’ve mentioned to you previously. Claiming it is inexplicable or a mistake just indicates your own assumptions or unfamiliarity with scholars who have studied Luke’s narrative logic. Luke’s ordering of his account much better explains why Peter, Andrew, James & John would follow Jesus rather than the very abrupt call in Mark. Luke also makes sure to mention Jesus preaching in Judea (Lk 4,44) to better explain why there would be Judean followers of Jesus, which is not accounted for in Mark’s gospel (Mk 3,7-8 Lk 6,17).
Its not Luke’s ordering of the account that better explains Peter, Andrew James & John following Jesus but his expansion of the account. Luke could have just left the expansion where it was and got the same effect.
Yes Luke has good reasons for moving lots of stories around but not the one I’ve drawn attention to.
Mark has this ordering “Jesus calls First disciples” “Jesus drives out impure spirit” “Jesus heals Many”.
If Luke is editing Mark he has moved “Jesus calls First disciples” to after “Jesus heals Many”. He would have moved Peter’s first meeting with Jesus to after Jesus going to Peter’s house. It’s this re-ordering that’s inexplicable – but of course easy to explain if Mark is editing Luke.
Mark Goodacre is a very strong proponent of Markan priority, as are the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars. You can’t just say, “Given that I think Matthew was written before Mark this large agreement naturally becomes evidence for Luke’s use of Matthew.” That is the same as saying, Given that I choose to completely ignore the great majority of the evidence that has convinced the overwhelming majority of scholars, I get to miscontrue a small portion of the evidence in favor of my unjustified assumption.
Well no the point is that there is clear interdependence between the synoptics and if one rules out gospels A,B as having priority all the evidence then naturally points to gospel C.
I don’t ignore any evidence for Markan priority – happy to discuss whatever evidence you’d like.
Robert said
Given that I think the earth is flat, all of the evidence for a heliocentric solar system naturally becomes evidence for a geocentric universe.
No this is the wrong analogy – a better one would be a series of eye-witness statements accusing one of a pair of twins of a crime. If twin A gets ruled out all the eye-witness testimony against him naturally falls on twin B.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)