Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?

[polonius]

This seems like a question the answer to which is self-evident.

Not really. Was the gospel signed or does it state John wrote this gospel?

If not, how is it determined to have been written by John?

[otseng]

The identifying of "the betrayer" was when they were reclined at the table (and there was evidently enough food left on the table for some to be used), so what relevance that Jesus at some point washed feet?

According to Luke, the identification of the betrayer was after supper. This agrees with the chronology of the fourth gospel.

Luk 22:20-21 KJV - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [is] with me on the table.

However, here is an example of inconsistencies of the evening accounts. In Matthew and Mark, the betrayer is identified during supper.

Mar 14:18 KJV - And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

Mat 26:21 KJV - And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

It is unlikely that they reclined to eat with unwashed feet but even if they did, I fail to se why this would signal a thirteenth disciple ?

If they had their feet washed before supper, then it was some unnamed servant that did it. So, this would indicate at least one other person with them.

But, most likely their feet were unwashed during supper. During supper, they were all wondering who was going to wash their feet. None of them certainly was going to do it since they were all arguing which of them was the greatest.

Luk 22:24 KJV - And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

Jesus knew all this, so he washed their feet.

... are you suggesting that Jesus hadn't washed their feet before eating but when a new arrival came this arrival that prompted him to get up and wash everyone's feet?

Yes, it's my theory.

Is it logical that they all ate the meal with unwashed feet ?

If their feet were washed before supper, who did it then?

Or are you suggesting Jesus washed their feet twice?

He did it once and it was after the meal.

Or that he got up and washed only the new arrivals then lay back down to handle the food that remained?

According to the fourth gospel, the only food mentioned after the meal is a sop. And it was only used to signal who would betray him.

Jhn 13:26 KJV - Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.

Can you see that what I am saying that anything is possible but since there is no real scriptural basis for that "anything" we don't introduce it.

The entire Lazarus argument is cumulative, it is not just based on the timing of events during the final night. It is the narrative of Lazarus and how he fits into the entire accounts of the gospels.

Anyway, I believe a reading that reflects confidence in the author not neglecting such a significant detail lends to a a contextual coherence and narrows down the beloved disciple to one of the twelve. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Which apostle do you believe to be the beloved disciple?

[JehovahsWitness]

... are you suggesting that Jesus hadn't washed their feet before eating but when a new arrival came this arrival that prompted him to get up and wash everyone's feet?

Yes, it's my theory.

Ok but what in the act indicates it must have been promoted by a new arrival? In other words what's to stop Jesus looking at the twelve, figuring that none of them are going to do it and unprompted by a new arrival, simply getting up and washing the feet of the 12?

Why option 1 and not option 2? That is my question, what in the narrative indicates he must have washed the feet because of a thirteenth arrival because without the thirteenth he could not have possibly still washed 12 pairs of feet (regardless of when it happened)?

JW

[polonius]

Anyway, I believe a reading that reflects confidence in the author not neglecting such a significant detail lends to a contextual coherence Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this.

RESPONSE: Then you believe incorrectly. Obviously, some people cooked the meal so there were more than 12 people present. Quite possible some women.

Which apostle do you believe to be the beloved disciple?

RESPONSE: Once again. The “Beloved disciple� is never identified as the Apostle John. Whoever he was, he took Mary into his home �within the hour. �

John lived in Galilee about a three day journey away. Lazarus lived in Bethany about a half hour walk from Jerusalem. Do the math!

Also note that the writer of John does not identify the Last Supper as the Seder meal of Passover. Actually, it is on the day before. And there was no institution of a Eucharist.

Use attention to detail not “I just have to believe.�

[otseng]

Ok but what in the act indicates it must have been promoted by a new arrival?

Never said it must have been prompted by a new arrival. But, it's a minor point anyway.

More importantly, which apostle do you believe to be the beloved disciple and why?

[otseng]

In Luke, only Peter, and not John, is mentioned to visit Jesus' tomb.

Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

If TDWJL was John, shouldn't he have also been mentioned by Luke? But, if he was Lazarus, then he would not be considered a significant character since he was not an apostle and a youth.

[brianbbs67]

As to the foot washing, Jesus and the disciples were criticized for not washing up before dinner.

[JehovahsWitness]

Ok but what in the act indicates it must have been promoted by a new arrival?

Never said it must have been prompted by a new arrival. But, it's a minor point anyway.

Well then, from what I can see, we have a theory of a thirteen disciple lying in a favoured position with Jesus at arguably the most important meal recorded in scripture based on, a assumption that the gospel writers neglected to indicate this individuals arrival. While there was indeed time for such an event there is nothing in the narrative that imposes this person's arrival and taking a place next to Jesus at the table and such an assumptions definitely casts doubts on the gospel writers ability to include all relevant details.

Alternatively we can assume all relevant details were included and that whoever the beloved disciple was he was one of the twelve Apostles we know from the narrative were definitely present. If this later reading is accepted this would definitively narrow things down.

[polonius]

Ok but what in the act indicates it must have been promoted by a new arrival?

Never said it must have been prompted by a new arrival. But, it's a minor point anyway.

Well then, from what I can see, we have a theory of a thirteen disciple lying in a favoured position with Jesus at arguably the most important meal recorded in scripture based on, a assumption that the gospel writers neglected to indicate this individuals arrival. While there was indeed time for such an event there is nothing in the narrative that imposes this person's arrival and taking a place next to Jesus at the table and such an assumptions definitely casts doubts on the gospel writers ability to include all relevant details.

Alternatively we can assume all relevant details were included and that whoever the beloved disciple was he was one of the twelve Apostles we know from the narrative were definitely present. If this later reading is accepted this would definitively narrow things down.

RESPONSE: Or maybe the last supper story in John's Gospel is correct. Keep in mind that unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke who had the sedar, the Last Supper and a eucharist, the day before the crucifixion, John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, a day earlier, rather than the Passover. And no eucharist. I wonder why?

You don't suppose that John's Gospel written 65 years after the fact by a non-witness could be uninspired, do you?

[otseng]

Alternatively we can assume all relevant details were included and that whoever the beloved disciple was he was one of the twelve Apostles we know from the narrative were definitely present. If this later reading is accepted this would definitively narrow things down.

As polonius reminded, the fourth gospel never mentions eating the last supper or the eucharist. TDWJL is never mentioned as participating in these events. So, is it not relevant or did he not participate in it?

[otseng]

Could TDWJL have participated in the last supper but simply not have recorded it?

I believe this is unlikely. In the fourth gospel, the author is very detailed about events and dialogues throughout the book. The account of that evening in the room spans from chapter 13 to chapter 17. He obviously had no hesitation in providing details of that evening.

The dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus is the entirety of chapter 3. Much of chapter 4 is Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Chapter 6 is the feeding of the 5000 and the preaching related to being the bread of life. Chapter 9 is healing the blind man. Chapter 11 is the resurrection of Lazarus. TDWJL was keen on providing details throughout the book.

A response to this is that TDWJL wanted to just provide details that are not covered in the synoptic gospels. He didn't want to rehash things that are already mentioned in the other gospels.

However, this is not likely either since he does mention things that are also in the synpotics. All four gospels record Peter's denial of Jesus, the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus arrest, and the trial before Pilate.

It is also unlikely TDWJL used the synoptic gospels as material for his own book. It seems he wrote his gospel to be an independent account. He did not decide what to write based on what was in the synoptic gospels.

Could there be reasons why he might want to leave out the supper if he had attended it?

One theory I've read is the sacrament is like a secret ritual and he didn't want to disclose what actually happens during the Eucharist. However, the cat was already out of the bag. The fourth gospel is generally accepted as being written after the synoptic gospels. He wasn't hiding anything by not writing about it.

The fourth gospel also talks about the sacrament of baptism. So why hide the sacrament of the elements, but not hide the sacrament of baptism?

Jhn 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

So, all this leads to indicate he did not record the supper because he did not attend it.