Magdalenbrother
June 6th 2004, 07:30 AM
Apparently, you need to read John more attentively. You apparently rushed to judgment with this argument and missed a number of texts in the Gospel. Take this one, for example:
"One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him" (John 6:8).
Here Andrew, who is one of the Twelve, is called "one of his disciples"--the very phrase you claim excludes the beloved disciple from the Twelve!
Thomas, whom you said was called "one of the Twelve," is also called one of the disciples:
"Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples" (John 11:16).
So is Judas, about whom you said the same thing; again, using the very phrase you quoted as applying to the writer of the Gospel:
"But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples" (John 12:4).
Thomas is also mentioned along with "the other disciples":
"So the other disciples were saying to him" (John 20:25).
When the Gospel refers to its author as "one of his disciples," this is in the context of the Last Supper, where Jesus ate with the Twelve:
"There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23).
Peter is repeatedly spoken of alongside the unnamed disciple, who is called "another" or "the other" disciple, identifying Peter as a disciple in the same sense as well:
"Simon Peter was following Jesus, and another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest.... but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest" (John 18:15).
"So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved.... So Peter and the other disciple left, and they were going toward the tomb. The two were running together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.... So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed" (John 20:2-4, 8).
Another text refers to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (which of course includes John the son of Zebedee), and two others, as Jesus' "disciples":
"Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together" (John 21:2; see also v. 8).
My answer to your patient objections (no rude words, what a miracle!), for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart, is the following:
"John" did not provide any exhaustive list of the Twelve. So, who is a member of the Twelve in the perspective of the fourth Gospel remains an open question. Another question that remains painfully open is when the Twelve were officially formed. In the Synoptics, we do know when Jesus chose his inner circle of disciples; in the fourth Gospel, we don't. But since the first mention of the Twelve appears at the end of "Jhn" 6, it is safe to say that the Twelve were created after the massive loss of disciples that followed the shocking speech on the bread of life.
That explains in my view why Andrew is not described as "one of the Twelve" but simply as a "disciple".
Besides, Andrew and Peter were disciples who were known to the reader of the fourth Gospel by their being introduced in chapter 1. There we learned who they were, where they came from, etc. But for disciples for whom no detailed introductory story has been provided, "John" is careful to say whether they belonged to the Twelve or not: the first reference to Judas says that he indeed was one of the Twelve, a shocking piece of information, no doubt about that.
And as for Thomas the Twin, "John" provides that important piece of information later, in chapter 20. Why so late? I think the reason is theological: Thomas became spiritually a member of the sacred inner circle when he recognized Jesus as the Lord in whom God dwells bodily ("my Lord and my God") . His first utterance ("Let us also go, that we may die with him") shows him to be ignorant of the real destiny of Jesus: he thinks that his master is simply going to die like anybody else, the passive victim of Fate. "John" here refrains from describing him as "one of the Twelve" to show his immaturity.
The other references you kindly provided simply demonstrate that the disciples referred to were not only the Twelve but a mixture of the Twelve and other disciples or maybe only "disciples". Let us note en passant that "John" is quite unique in this respect for the other Evangelists reserve the title of disciple(s) to the Twelve and the Twelve only (Luke speaks of the 72 but refrains from calling them "disciples").
But for the beloved disciple there is not a single reference to "his" being among the Twelve. You say that only the Twelve were reclining at the Last Supper as proof that he must have been of the Twelve but where is the proof that only the Twelve were there in John ? Mat 26,20 and Mark 14,17 and Luke 22, 14 do assert that he was with the Twelve but they don't say: he was there with the Twelve only. There could have been servants and Jesus' guest was probably there too since Jesus didn't celebrate Pessah in his own house.
Are we going to use an argument from silence now by saying that if someone else had been there, the Evangelists would have said it ? No I think we will not dare to say that. Anyway let us remember that the lists of disciples are not identical in Matthew, Mark and Luke. So there is no way to know who was there and who wasn't. And it is no good trying to do some laborious "Gospel patchwork" by saying "Mark says that, therefore John must have thought the same", "if Matthew says the Twelve were there, we must assume that John also thought that but somehow didn't write it (to avoid repetition maybe?)." This kind of patchwork or Biblical "collage" rests on the theory of what I have termed the "Biblical division of labour", theory which I have refuted elsewhere. There are too many contradictions between the Gospels for such a theory to be even remotely plausible.
We must take each Gospel as a self-contained unity. That is my principle and it is borne out by the facts. If the Evangelists had worked together or read the other Gospels, there wouldn't be any blatant contradictions between their works.
To come back to the original point, let me say that to be among the Twelve would have been extremely important for the beloved disciple that would have added to the value of "his" testimony. Not being one of the Twelve, "he" was obliged to insist that the value of "his" testimony rested entirely on the fact that "he" was loved more than the others and that "he" didn't desert his master like all the others (something Jesus predicted) and was the witness of his crucifixion and resurrection.
And since we know from the Synoptic Gospels that only female followers of Jesus were there, I am obliged to conclude that the beloved disciple was a woman, most probably the Magdalen. This, for a change, is not an argument from silence !
Another argument from speech (!) is the fact, already mentioned, that Jesus predicted before his arrest that the Twelve would abandon him as one man. The first who would believe in him again was to be the apostle Peter, if Luke is correct, that is (Luk 22,30-31):
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Since Jesus predicted (he said it, that is not an argument from silence!) that the Twelve would desert him and worse stop believing in him altogether, how could John be under the cross? If Peter had been there, this would have still tallied with Jesus' words in Luke but too bad Peter believed only after the first apparition of the risen Christ, three (symbolical) days after his death !
I know that nobody will buy my arguments among mainstream Christians but just in case there was a thoughtful and open-minded reader around...
PS: There is such a thing in human language as the masculine functioning as inclusive as in the following example: Go and ask a disciple of Jesus': he will tell you ! Are all Christians males?
"One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him" (John 6:8).
Here Andrew, who is one of the Twelve, is called "one of his disciples"--the very phrase you claim excludes the beloved disciple from the Twelve!
Thomas, whom you said was called "one of the Twelve," is also called one of the disciples:
"Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples" (John 11:16).
So is Judas, about whom you said the same thing; again, using the very phrase you quoted as applying to the writer of the Gospel:
"But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples" (John 12:4).
Thomas is also mentioned along with "the other disciples":
"So the other disciples were saying to him" (John 20:25).
When the Gospel refers to its author as "one of his disciples," this is in the context of the Last Supper, where Jesus ate with the Twelve:
"There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23).
Peter is repeatedly spoken of alongside the unnamed disciple, who is called "another" or "the other" disciple, identifying Peter as a disciple in the same sense as well:
"Simon Peter was following Jesus, and another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest.... but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest" (John 18:15).
"So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved.... So Peter and the other disciple left, and they were going toward the tomb. The two were running together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.... So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed" (John 20:2-4, 8).
Another text refers to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (which of course includes John the son of Zebedee), and two others, as Jesus' "disciples":
"Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together" (John 21:2; see also v. 8).
My answer to your patient objections (no rude words, what a miracle!), for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart, is the following:
"John" did not provide any exhaustive list of the Twelve. So, who is a member of the Twelve in the perspective of the fourth Gospel remains an open question. Another question that remains painfully open is when the Twelve were officially formed. In the Synoptics, we do know when Jesus chose his inner circle of disciples; in the fourth Gospel, we don't. But since the first mention of the Twelve appears at the end of "Jhn" 6, it is safe to say that the Twelve were created after the massive loss of disciples that followed the shocking speech on the bread of life.
That explains in my view why Andrew is not described as "one of the Twelve" but simply as a "disciple".
Besides, Andrew and Peter were disciples who were known to the reader of the fourth Gospel by their being introduced in chapter 1. There we learned who they were, where they came from, etc. But for disciples for whom no detailed introductory story has been provided, "John" is careful to say whether they belonged to the Twelve or not: the first reference to Judas says that he indeed was one of the Twelve, a shocking piece of information, no doubt about that.
And as for Thomas the Twin, "John" provides that important piece of information later, in chapter 20. Why so late? I think the reason is theological: Thomas became spiritually a member of the sacred inner circle when he recognized Jesus as the Lord in whom God dwells bodily ("my Lord and my God") . His first utterance ("Let us also go, that we may die with him") shows him to be ignorant of the real destiny of Jesus: he thinks that his master is simply going to die like anybody else, the passive victim of Fate. "John" here refrains from describing him as "one of the Twelve" to show his immaturity.
The other references you kindly provided simply demonstrate that the disciples referred to were not only the Twelve but a mixture of the Twelve and other disciples or maybe only "disciples". Let us note en passant that "John" is quite unique in this respect for the other Evangelists reserve the title of disciple(s) to the Twelve and the Twelve only (Luke speaks of the 72 but refrains from calling them "disciples").
But for the beloved disciple there is not a single reference to "his" being among the Twelve. You say that only the Twelve were reclining at the Last Supper as proof that he must have been of the Twelve but where is the proof that only the Twelve were there in John ? Mat 26,20 and Mark 14,17 and Luke 22, 14 do assert that he was with the Twelve but they don't say: he was there with the Twelve only. There could have been servants and Jesus' guest was probably there too since Jesus didn't celebrate Pessah in his own house.
Are we going to use an argument from silence now by saying that if someone else had been there, the Evangelists would have said it ? No I think we will not dare to say that. Anyway let us remember that the lists of disciples are not identical in Matthew, Mark and Luke. So there is no way to know who was there and who wasn't. And it is no good trying to do some laborious "Gospel patchwork" by saying "Mark says that, therefore John must have thought the same", "if Matthew says the Twelve were there, we must assume that John also thought that but somehow didn't write it (to avoid repetition maybe?)." This kind of patchwork or Biblical "collage" rests on the theory of what I have termed the "Biblical division of labour", theory which I have refuted elsewhere. There are too many contradictions between the Gospels for such a theory to be even remotely plausible.
We must take each Gospel as a self-contained unity. That is my principle and it is borne out by the facts. If the Evangelists had worked together or read the other Gospels, there wouldn't be any blatant contradictions between their works.
To come back to the original point, let me say that to be among the Twelve would have been extremely important for the beloved disciple that would have added to the value of "his" testimony. Not being one of the Twelve, "he" was obliged to insist that the value of "his" testimony rested entirely on the fact that "he" was loved more than the others and that "he" didn't desert his master like all the others (something Jesus predicted) and was the witness of his crucifixion and resurrection.
And since we know from the Synoptic Gospels that only female followers of Jesus were there, I am obliged to conclude that the beloved disciple was a woman, most probably the Magdalen. This, for a change, is not an argument from silence !
Another argument from speech (!) is the fact, already mentioned, that Jesus predicted before his arrest that the Twelve would abandon him as one man. The first who would believe in him again was to be the apostle Peter, if Luke is correct, that is (Luk 22,30-31):
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Since Jesus predicted (he said it, that is not an argument from silence!) that the Twelve would desert him and worse stop believing in him altogether, how could John be under the cross? If Peter had been there, this would have still tallied with Jesus' words in Luke but too bad Peter believed only after the first apparition of the risen Christ, three (symbolical) days after his death !
I know that nobody will buy my arguments among mainstream Christians but just in case there was a thoughtful and open-minded reader around...
PS: There is such a thing in human language as the masculine functioning as inclusive as in the following example: Go and ask a disciple of Jesus': he will tell you ! Are all Christians males?