But the reasons I gave in comment 21 should be sufficient for deciding “the disciple Jesus loved” is supposed to be John son of Zebedee (whether or not it actually is).

It is a coded description of John, not intended to be decipherable from the synoptic accounts. 

This indicates historical tradition. Two independent accounts (G of John and the synoptics) leading to the same conclusion  – John thought of himself as superior to the other disciples.

Also the 2nd C tradition of John being the author doesn’t appear to be derived from this same logic. 

So we have a first century work claiming to be written by John, second century testimony agreeing with it, and no particular reason to doubt either.

1. I dont think Im assuming the author wasnt aware of the synoptics (I think he probably was) – but am assuming the designation “disciple whom Jesus loved” isn’t derived from there (I think its taken from Deuteronomy 33:12).

2. No, but my understanding is that its only described as a tradition which has been passed down.

3. I don’t think he intended it to be indecipherable – I think it was readily understood by his contemporaries. And just in case it wasn’t, by the time the epilogue was written, the author of chapter 21 made sure to add sons of zebedee at the beginning. 

Robert said

Well, you did say “Two independent accounts (G of John and the synoptics).” If you are not assuming they are independent, where is your (or someone else’s) demonstration that they are independent?

The account of the Zebedee brothers causing tension in the synoptics and the account of a disciple referring to himself as “the one Jesus loved” in the 4th gospel aren’t derived from each other. They’re independent descriptions of the same phenomenon.

Please take a look and get back to me.

Which account of the 2nd century tradition of John writing the 4th gospel indicate that its derived from a comparison of the 4th gospel’s description of its author as “the disciple that Jesus loved” and the synoptics portrayal of the Zebedees causing tension with the rest of the 12?

Then please explain what you meant by: “It is a coded description of John, not intended to be decipherable from the synoptic accounts.” And then I will happily get back to you.  

Its coded. There’s nothing in the gospel itself to give it away (he’s someone who believes himself superior to the other disciples, and a replacement leader to Peter). But contemporary readers, we can assume, will know who’s being indicated.

The author is not intending readers to also read the synoptics and Paul’s letters and find out from them who’s being referred to.

You’re actually saying they are NOT independent. You’re saying that John the son of Zebedee wrote of himself that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. So, in your opinion, both accounts are derived from the same person, an actor in the first account, and the author of the second account. And, are these really describing the same phenomenon? In Mark’s gospel the brothers ask for the honor of being allowed to sit at the right and the left of Jesus in his glory and it is refused, not an indication that either John or James was especially beloved. Furthermore, in Luke the brothers are rebuked by Jesus for wanting to call down fire from heaven. Do you think these behaviors are likely to have caused them to be especially beloved by Jesus? Where would John have gotten this idea that he had been especially beloved by Jesus? Or are you thinking perhaps that he merely vainly thought he was especially beloved by Jesus and did not realize how and why Jesus rebuffed rebuffed him? At any rate, it’s not really independent.

The underlying phenomenon is John the son of Zebedee thinking of himself as closure to Jesus or superior than the other disciples (whether or not he actually was).

The two accounts (synoptics and 4th gospel) take two different sides – synoptics that he vainly believed this and was rebuffed by Jesus on separate occasions and the 4th gospel that he was correct in thinking of himself this way.

They’re represent two separate points of view. It can’t be said that a reader of a synoptics would then derive his account of an unnamed disciple being the one Jesus loved. So the two accounts are independent – not derived one from the other.

I’m not saying that. But I do believe that you would do well to better familiarize yourself with the 2nd-century traditions you are referencing as support for your argument. When looked at closely, they really do not merit much credence.

They might not merit much credence but the point is that it was a tradition which had been passed down. It wasn’t an invention of the late 2nd C and it wasn’t being derived from some internal examination of the gospels.

If you assume that contemporary readers would clearly recognize that he is referring to himself as John the son of Zebedee, I’m still wondering what you meant by it being coded. If there is a (secret) code, doesn’t it need to be deciphered? Or are you perhaps thinking that John is simply being falsely modest, obviously referring to himself as the superior disciple especially beloved by Jesus but avoiding saying so directly out of false modesty? And yet it was supposedly obvious to his readers. Why not just say ‘I’ or ‘me’ without drawing attention to himself in this way?

Some codes are easily deciphered and some not – if the disciple is referenced obscurely the reference is coded. Its possibly false modesty I’m not sure; but I think the contemporary readers knew who wrote the gospel and knew who was being referenced by “the one Jesus loved” – especially as one of the pillars of church, and one of the leading apostles, John son of zebedee, is nowhere mentioned elsewhere in the gospel.

And if you think that the beloved disciple thought of himself as a worthy replacement leader for Peter, wouldn’t it make much more sense to think of the beloved dsiciple as James, the brother of the Lord, who replaced Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church?

James the brother of the Lord wasn’t a disciple during his ministry (at least according to the 4th gospel), so we have to rule him out.

Robert said
If the gospel of John is presenting his own opposing view of his superiority in contrast to the synoptic gospels, that could very well function as an indication that he knew the synoptic accounts and was providing his own alternative view of himself in response.  Personally, I don’t think that is the case because I see no compelling reason to assume that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the work.

There might not be compelling reasons to believe it, but the author of chapter 21 is telling us he wrote it down and 2nd century christians (who had far more information than we do) believed it too. There’s no compelling reason to think they’re wrong.

It is a possible reading of the gospel as is clear from the 2nd-century reading of some. You assert, incredibly, that this interpretation was not based on a reading of the internal material of the gospel, while also assuming that contemporary readers of the gospel of John would clearly recognize that he is referring to himself as John the son of Zebedee. Don’t you see how you are contradicting yourself?

Ultimately it might derive from the internal evidence, but the 2nd C christians aren’t the one’s doing the initial derivation. What they tell us is “John as the author” is the tradition passed down to them. It’s not a late 2nd C derivation.

You yourself give one of the most often cited reasons for thinking that the anonymous beloved disciple might have been John the son of Zebedee, ie, he is not otherwise mentioned by name in this gospel. Neither is James the son of Zebedee, or James the brother of Jesus, or Mary the mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene, etc. 

James the son of Zebedee wasn’t a pillar of the church waiting in line after Peter. James the brother of Jesus wasn’t a disciple during Jesus’ ministry. So can’t be those two.

The beloved disciple is with Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the crucifixion.

You can assume that James was not the beloved disciple and therefore not a disciple of Jesus during his ministry in the gospel of John. But this assumption need not be made. See, for example, the view of James Tabor who argues that James the brother of Jesus was the beloved disciple.

I’m not basing the claim he wasn’t a disciple during his ministry on an assumption he wasn’t the beloved disciple. I’m basing on the 4th gospel itself.

John 7:5 “For even his own brothers did not believe in him.” (plural)

Perhaps your most unwarranted assumption is that the fourth gospel should be read in such an historicizing manner. The beloved disciple functions as an idealized disciple who is placed in scenes for the author’s own purposes. If the author at one time first thought of him as a particular character from the synoptics, he certainly does not stress this, doesn’t even mention it, and nonetheless seems to freely put him in various scenes where he often serves a larger narrative or theological purpose. If it was important for the author that his name be known, he could very easily have named him. It would have been easier to simply name this person than to constantly describe him with circumlocutions. Why not pay more attention to what he actually wrote rather than try to change it?  

It wasn’t important that for the author that his name be known because it already was widely known. He’s named as a pillar of the church alongside Peter and James by Paul. Three books about the life of Jesus already give him a prominent position.

John son of Zebedee is conspicuous by his absence in the 4th gospel – replaced by some mysterious beloved disciple. Who is ever present with Peter at important events, ready to follow as spiritual leader of the church. Every contemporary reader would have known who it was.

It’s not historically credible the John son Zebedee would be left out of the 4th gospel. He isn’t. He has the most prominent place of anyone next to Jesus.

Robert said
Do you also believe that Paul was the actual author of the pseudepigraphic deutero-Pauline letters?

I think there’s a reason they gained widespread acceptance as written by Paul. Either written in his name with his consent or written as a committee. I think the pastorals are private letters and will necessary appear different to the letters intended to be read out publicly to a congregation.

None of your arguments address the possibility of the gospel of ‘John’ being a non-pseudepigraphic forgery.

Nor are you considering why the author of the text clearly prefered that this character remain anonymous.   

Well it could be a forgery but I don’t think there’s any particular reason to believe that it is. It would seem stranger for a forger of John to reference him obscurely than for John to self-reference like that.

I think referring to himself as just the beloved disciple instead of naming himself is a type of boasting – confident in the belief that everyone would know which disciple was being talked about.

But its only the epilogue that claims the beloved disciple wrote the gospel. A forger would have to refer to John obscurely then wait for an epilogue to come along where someone else would claim the beloved disciple wrote Ch 1-20.

Or the writer of 1-20 never intended anyone to think the beloved disciple wrote the gospel and chapter 21 is making a false claim. Then chapter 21 should be treated like 2nd C tradition that John wrote the gospel. Now however that tradition would extend back into the 1st C.

John 1:14 does not say the beloved disciple is the one writing it down