Gospel of John or not?

[GotScripture]

Jester and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate in which neither of us will cite any source other than the Bible. The subject of the debate will be the following statements Jester made regarding the fourth gospel and it's anonymous author:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one. He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, and his actions correspond with the John of the other gospels. Certainly, regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness.

Upon seeing Jester’s statement, I posted this invitation to Jester:

Jester, "Prove all things" is an admonition of scripture and in the sprit of obedience to that admonition I hope you will be willing to do just that. I noticed that you made several wholly unbiblical claims in post 83 and while you no doubt believe the claims or you wouldn't have made them, I fully trust that you would also agree that passing along hand-me-down errors and promoting false traditions as if they were Biblical is not the way to bring glory to Jesus and will not serve to advance the cause of truth.

So in that regard (advancing the cause of truth) I hope you pray about whether the Lord would have to to participate in a one-on-one debate where we would both agree to cite NOTHING BUT THE BIBLE in an effort to see if I can in fact disprove your statements directly from the text of scripture -- or, if you in fact can provide a Biblical justification for the statements you made.

Of course one should not be making statements on Biblical issues if they don't have a Biblical justification, so I hope you will agree to defend your claims in a one-on-one debate. Rather than challenge your statements on this thread (where it would be a distraction) it seemed more likely to serve the cause of truth if we could engage directly in a Biblical discussion that would be free from both the 'noise' of outsider comments and might encourage others to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. And since we'll both agree to use the Bible as our only measure of truth, then i would also hope others would be led to pay more heed to "every word of God".

If the Lord leads you to agree then I'll post your quotes in a one-on-one debate thread and we can engage in a time of reasoning from his word where either I'll correct you or you'll correct me directly from his word -- and if not then so be it. As I will be out of town this week I will check for your response when I return weekend -- A) Yes -or- B) No.

Jester graciously responded as follows:

Absolutely! I'd love to discuss theology. I actually have lamented the fact that I can't get more in depth in these debates (there's definitely a limit to how far we can go with apologetics alone), and am always looking to learn some things about scripture. As such, I'd be glad to do a one on one as we are able.

That said, Jester will seek to present scripture to justify his statements on the fourth gospel and I will seek to present the Biblical evidence that proves this “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was not John.


Jester, in this effort to seek the truth certainly quality is more important than speed of response is the goal, so please take whatever time you need to respond and I will do likewise. Now, as noted above you stated:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one. He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, and his actions correspond with the John of the other gospels. Certainly, regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness.

The Bible proves that your statement is wrong on each of these four counts:
1 - ...one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one
2 - ...He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”
3 - ...his (the author’s) actions correspond with the John of the other gospels
4 - ...regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness

Let’s subject each of these claims to Biblical scrutiny. (To make it easier to respond I will use a separate post for refuting each claim)

[GotScripture]

Claim one:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one

IF there truly are many places where this occurs then it should be very easy to cite at least one of these many places. So please cite a verse. Got scripture?

In fact a quick look in any concordance for the names of the twelve will reveal that you’ve been sold a bill of goods on the John tradition - for if you search the scriptures you’ll see this claim is absolutely without merit. As happens with many hand-me-down traditions, the unbiblical John idea is presented AS IF it were Biblical but in truth this idea does not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.

Of course you can easily prove me wrong by citing JUST ONE VERSE (or any of the “many” passages) from the fourth gospel where you claim “the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one.” Your statement however couldn’t be more wrong because the fourth gospel is in fact the ONLY one of the four gospels which does not list the twelve.

[GotScripture]

Claim Two:

He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”

There is not a single verse anywhere in the entire New Testament that would justify teaching the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John.

Clearly the anonymous author of the fourth gospel repeatedly identifies himself with the terms “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, “the other disciple” and “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” but it is also equally clear that this author NEVER identifies himself as John. So why not heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” and see if the John label is simply a man-made tradition?

You seem to agree that one should not be making statements on Biblical issues if they can’t cite even one verse that would justify teaching that idea, so I will ask you again here as I did in Claim One, to cite one verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple”.

[GotScripture]

Claim Three:

his (the author’s) actions correspond with the John of the other gospels

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact if one looks they will find that the BEHAVIOR of John in the first three gospels stands in stark contrast to the BEHAVIOR of the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

For example, on the night that Jesus was betrayed John didn’t have the strength to even stay awake and pray for Jesus – even though Jesus specifically asked him to do so (along with Peter and James). Then moments later when Jesus is arrested at Gethsemane ALL of the twelve flee. Peter and the unnamed “other disciple” do return but Peter eventually denies Jesus and leaves.

The next day when Jesus is crucified we see that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” is still close by Jesus, standing at the foot of the cross, but there is no Biblical reason to believe why John would suddenly be acting with such courage and stamina when he couldn’t even stay awake the night before.

So again I ask you to cite even one verse of scripture that would justify your making this claim. I challenge you to cite a single fact in the Biblical record about the actions of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” that would “correspond with the John of the other gospels” (i.e. what would specifically single out John as being the unnamed “other disciple” as opposed to James or Thomas, etc.).

[GotScripture]

Claim Four:

regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness

Here I wouldn’t dispute your assertion that the anonymous author of the fourth gospel is “presenting himself as an eyewitness”. But since you believe that the author IS “presenting himself as an eyewitness” do you not think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?

The Mount of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead - the key moments of John’s involvement in the ministry of Jesus – are all missing from the fourth gospel. Why? Could it be the author was not an eyewitness to these events?

Every single time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel. It is indeed hard to understand why this would be the case if this author was John, but it is easy to understand why this is the case if he wasn’t the author.

While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. But again, as before, I ask you to produce just one verse that would constitute Biblical evidence of JOHN’S eyewitness testimony in the fourth gospel.

[Jester]

I was actually a bit surprised. I had picked out other statements that I thought you would mention. This is an area where I’m forced to admit quickly to overstepping my expertise in some areas.
Given that my answers are so short, I think I’ll combine the four points (but will keep the headings for the sake of structure). Let me know if you want them separated again. At first glance, however, I think this is going to be a moot point.
Here we go:

Claim one:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel whre the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one

IF there truly are many places where this occurs then it should be very easy to cite at least one of these many places. So please cite a verse. Got scripture?

You’ve got me on this one. I spoke (or wrote, actually) without thinking. You’re absolutely correct to point out that John does not contain a list of the disciples (for the sake of clearing up my misinformation on that one, I did check). Consider that point conceded.


I have the same response for both points two and three:
Claim Two:

He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”

There is not a single verse anywhere in the entire New Testament that would justify teaching the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John.

Claim Three:

his (the author’s) actions correspond with the John of the other gospels

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact if one looks they will find that the BEHAVIOR of John in the first three gospels stands in stark contrast to the BEHAVIOR of the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

Again conceded. I made a point of looking over the applicable verses, and there is nothing that gives a clear indication in that direction. As such, I am forced to admit that I’ve been reading those sections with that assumption, and simply did not pause to compare the sections regarding this point.


Claim Four:

regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness

Here I wouldn’t dispute your assertion that the anonymous author of the fourth gospel is “presenting himself as an eyewitness”. But since you believe that the author IS “presenting himself as an eyewitness” do you not think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?

While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. But again, as before, I ask you to produce just one verse that would constitute Biblical evidence of JOHN’S eyewitness testimony in the fourth gospel.

Having looked over the books again with your comments in mind, I agree that I was wrong to side with tradition on this point. As you agree that the book presents its author as an eyewitness, I suppose we’ve reached that simultaneously elating and disappointing moment when we realize that there is little left to debate.

I’m a bit disappointed that my first head to head doesn’t seem that it’s going to last much longer, I really am delighted (if a bit embarrassed) that I’ve been shown a flaw in my thinking. Thank you (and apologies for not offering some of the same in return – but I think trying to defend myself with this one will only be a matter of pride, and will contain no logic). Regardless, I hope its not too disappointing for you to get all geared up, then have me concede so quickly. I really appreciated all the references and arguments – they made seeing the err of my ways much easier. I’ll be certain not to make any of the aforementioned claims in the future (and will watch my blind trusting of such interpretive traditions besides – I was starting to think I’d gotten really good about that).

Now, I’m off to re-read John.

[GotScripture]

I’m forced to admit quickly to overstepping my expertise... on this one. I spoke (or wrote, actually) without thinking...( for the sake of clearing up my misinformation on that one, I did check)... I made a point of looking over the applicable verses, and there is nothing that gives a clear indication in that direction. As such, I am forced to admit that I’ve been reading those sections with that assumption, and simply did not pause to compare the sections regarding this point... I was wrong to side with tradition on this point.

I really am delighted (if a bit embarrassed) that I’ve been shown a flaw in my thinking... I really appreciated all the references and arguments – they made seeing the err of my ways much easier. I’ll be certain not to make any of the aforementioned claims in the future (and will watch my blind trusting of such interpretive traditions...

"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble"

We find this principle cited twice in the New Testament and given your clear willingness to be humble in response to the facts in the Biblical record look for grace to be coming your way because you’ve chosen to position yourself on the winning end of that equation.

Wow! Your response certainly evidences a love of the truth and in fact your response brings to mind a time in scripture where we see the response of someone who THOUGHT he was presenting the truth accurately but when he is informed by others of the facts that he was unaware of he accepts that correction and responds to the truth by changing his belief to match the facts. That person was named Apollos and five verses in the Book of Acts (18:24-28) record his wise response as an encouragement for us.

Your last statement (off to reread the gospel) is EXACTLY the right response; you're turning back to “every word of God” and that is the smart thing to do.

I challenge people to read the fourth gospel from the beginning with the honest question, Who would I come to the conclusion that this author was based on just the evidence that is found in the gospel itself? Because if one does this I categorically state that they will NEVER come to the conclusion that the unnamed one whom "Jesus loved" was John because NONE of the evidence points toward John. So as you revisit the gospel that was wrongly attributed to John, I hope you consider this question and put this statement to the test as you read.

[Jester]

So as you revisit the gospel that was wrongly attributed to John, I hope you consider this question and put this statement to the test as you read.

I certainly will. Thanks again for the thoughtfull and gracious posts.
This is why I enjoy this site so much.

[GotScripture]

I’ve been reading those sections with that (John) assumption... will watch my blind trusting of such interpretive traditions

Some thoughts for those reading this that are willing to “prove all things” and conduct the same test of subjecting the John tradition to Biblical scrutiny that Jester has agreed to do. (Jester has clearly recognized that truth is not served when we simply accept a tradition without question.) Here are some points to look for and things to keep in mind as you search the scriptures regarding the question, Who was the one whom “Jesus loved”?

The alarm bells should go off when one becomes aware of the fact that there is not even a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea – not one verse – and yet this idea is presented as if it were Biblical! But beyond this the facts preserved in the Biblical record prove that whoever the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” he could not have been John because this would require the Bible to contradict itself, which it cannot do.

Contrast the facts found in scripture about John with what scripture tells us about the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”. If one does this in the fourth gospel they will see that NONE of the evidence would point to John as being this unnamed disciple. However since the John idea would necessarily mean that the Bible contradicted itself those who trust the scriptures must conclude that the non-Bible sources that are used to justify the man-made John tradition are in error on this point. (By the way note that none of those non-Bible sources that are used to defend the John idea can cite even a single verse that would justify teaching this idea either — and this the first clue that should lead one to be wary of those non-Bible source statements that are used to prop-up this idea.)

Some points to look for when reading the fourth gospel: one already mentioned is the fact that not one event where John is named as participating in other gospels is described in the gospel that we are told is John’s eyewitness testimony. Does this make sense? And we know that John was one of three selected witnesses at The Mount of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the raising of the daughter of Jairus so why would one believe that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would omit any mention of all of these momentous events?

Furthermore, look closely and you’ll see that the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup at Jesus’ last passover are NOT in the fourth gospel. Why? Certainly this was an important moment and we know that John was there for this and yet we are to believe that his ‘eyewitness testimony’ regarding the ministry of Jesus would leave this out?

Some proponents of the John idea want to change the subject and argue against alternate suggestions as to who this disciple might have been but this of course does not answer the problem of promoting the John idea AS IF it were Biblical, since those promote this idea do so cannot cite even one verse that would justify teaching this idea. They are reduced to pointing to this-or-that non-Bible source but the fact that they have to rely on non-Bible sources and cannot cite even one verse that justifies what they are presenting should make anyone who knows Ps. 118:8 think twice about rushing to parrot this tradition.

If one cares about the truth, then they should put first things first. The question of this person’s identity is secondary when one is seeking to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” as concerns the John idea. Search the scriptures (as opposed to the opinions found in non-Bible sources) to see if this thing is so. If one does they will find that the man-made John tradition is not so - because the Bible cannot be wrong. (Jester please challenge on any point herein.)

[GotScripture]

Jester,

As you search the scritpures on the question, Who was the one that "Jesus loved"? I invite you to check out a reference that I just posted on the Authorship of John thread.

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com features a free eBook on this topic that offers a fairly comprehensive BIBLE-ONLY based study on this topic. I hope you'll consider the Biblical evidence that it presents which proves that John was most certainly not the unnamed "other disicple whom Jesus loved" -- whoever this person was. And while you are of course welcome to comment on the topic of who this person might be, I hope that you recognize that if the Bible has sufficient evidence to prove that this "other disciple" was not John, then we have to stop teaching this idea regardless of whether-or-not we feel that scripture can establish the identity of this person.