Jaguar Prince

You missed my point completely. I said that the second beloved disciple was a relative of Jesus', not that Mary the Magdalen was a relative of Jesus'.

You seem to forget one very important point: the synoptic gospels all report that there weren't any male disciples of Jesus on Golgotha. If there had been, they would have been arrested immediately. The truth is that they had fled and were in hiding, all of them, and Jesus had predicted it! He said that all the disciples would abandon him. Therefore there were only women at the cross, which shows that the beloved disciple must be the Magdalen.

Did John, as a Galilean fisherman, have a house of his own in Jerusalem? The fourth Gospel says that the beloved disciple took Mary to "his" home from the moment Jesus entrusted her to "him".

Then there is the episode with the priest servant on the night of Jesus' arrest. If John made it possible for Peter to enter the high priest's palace, he must have spoken perfect Aramaic without any trace of Galilean accent. But John, the son of Zebedee, an uneducated fisherman, could not possibly have spoken accent-free Aramaic. Therefore the disciple is not John. Had he said anything on that night, he would have been identified as a disciple of Jesus and arrested.

But if the disciple was a woman, even if she spoke with a horrendous Galilean accent, that wouldn't have mattered at all, because women didn't matter.

One more point to remember: the Last Supper was not a Greek symposion with males engaging in physical intimacies. It seems much more natural that a woman, rather than a man, would have been leaning against Jesus' chest. Remember that seder meals were family occasions and that women and children were present.

Anonimity is what befits a female. See the story of the pilgrims to Emmaus. One disciple is identified while the other isn't. Why? Because the other was probably his wife or sister. It is as simple as that...

Jag

Jaguar Prince

I'm not questioning your competence in Koine Greek but how can you be so sure? It seems to me that if the author meant to say that there was a second disciple whom Jesus loved the construction we find in the text is the most evident.

"The other of the disciples whom Jesus loved" is incredibly complicated compared with "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" and it sounds as if Jesus had lots of beloved disciples, which is not the case at all. Not that I deny that he didn't love the disciples or the people who surrounded him, but obviously the love referred to here is a preferential love that cannot be bestowed on everybody..

And what is so extraordinary about my claim except that it is unheard of? I mean the Greek does not create any problems. If we weren't talking about Mary, I'm pretty sure anybody would translate the relative clause straightforwardly.

See the different translations below. The very fact that about half the translators went out of their way to make it clear that there weren't two beloved disciples shows that the possibility of such a reading is quite real. But how can they be so sure that there wasn't a second beloved disciple?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1111117249-6391.html#2

If "John" had meant the same person as the one who had leaned against Jesus' bossom at the Last Supper, "he" would have used the usual phrase:

she runs and comes to Peter and to the disciple whom Jesus loved

No need to add "other". Besides, the change of verb for "love" is IMHO quite significant and striking.

Jag

Chili

Fair enough but if the beloved disciple was a relative and Mary Magdalena was not a relative she sure was not the beloved disciple. Ah, but I think that this John was the Roman centurion in the synoptic gospels. My John was John the Baptist who came to announce the time for reform. He was 'born of old' to make the melancholy of Joseph involutional and here returned with Mary theotokos to claim the victory and the spoils.The entire New Jerusalem was his and I don't think that this John was ever a fisherman. If anything he was the antagonist who taught the shepherds of Joseph how to become fishers of men now working for Jesus towards conversion. This would be in the call of the first disciples who left John to follow Jesus.

S.C.Carlson

The relevant text is (with the relative clause in blue): If I understand Jaguar Prince correctly, he is proposing that the relative clause ὃν �φίλει � Ἰησοῦς (hon ephilei ho Iêsous) should be understood attributively (e.g. "the other disciple Jesus loved") rather than predicatively ("the other disciple, whom Jesus loved").

In Greek, the position of the modifer in relation to the article and the noun is significant in determining whether the modifier is attributive or predicative. The difficulty with this proposal is that the relative clause is not in the attributive position. Rather, it is in the predicate position, and the standard translations are correct.

In order for the relative clause to be in the attributive position, which is what I think Jaguar Prince's interpretation necessitates, we would have to see instead either (bold indicates a new word): or: For more discussion about attributive and predicate position, see Smyth's grammar §§ 1154-1185 (pp. 293-298).

Stephen Carlson

Jaguar Prince

May I ask you a question, sir?

Every time you construct a sentence with a relative clause in your native language, do you use a circumlocution similar to that used by many translators of John 20:2? Do yo say:

This is the car, the one I want to buy

This this the one model of all the cars I can buy that I want to buy

Or do you say:

This is the car I want to buy?

Suppose you want to buy two cars:

Would you say?

This is the other of the two cars I want to buy

Or

This is the other car I want to buy ?

Obviously in each case, you would choose the simpler, shorter, more straightforward construction, and rightly so, because who wants to waste time and saliva in making circumlocutions?

I see no reason why native speakers of Koine Greek would have acted differently.

This is one of the cars I want to buy, and this is the other car I want to buy, Mr. Smith. How much is it? Since my intention is to buy two cars, can you give me a discount? Thank you, Mr.Smith.

Jag

Chili

Sorry I am not a bible student and don't even try to remember what I read.

I responded to your post because of this line: "For me the Bible is mainly myth, in the noble sense of the word." I agree with this and recognize a noble truth in the bible that is separate from its presentation in history.

The last supper was between Jesus and his apostles (helpers) who were once called the shepherds of Joseph. After metanoia they were called to be his disciples towards the completion of 'the race' which takes place in Galilee. Here they are recalled into the upper room so reason would prevail in heaven as on earth. The upper room is the right side of our mind to which the old Jerusalem is added and therefore the eidetic images of Joseph (once called his shepherds) needed to be recalled to become his richess in heaven. The reason why I call them eidetic images is because I see a connection between 'ousia's' and 'parousia' here now coming to its final end.

Amaleq13

Wouldn't it be considered "extraordinary" because it is "unheard of"?

And it seems to be "unheard of" because it is an inaccurate translation of the original Greek.

It makes no sense to claim that deliberate efforts to avoid a particular misinterpretation suggest that the misinterpretation is actually correct. You appear to be applying circular reasoning here. The translators can only be said to be going "out of their way" if we first assume your interpretation is correct. Their efforts to clarify the meaning do not support your claim but, quite clearly, affirm the denials you've already read here.

What is your level of expertise with Greek?

Jaguar Prince

The grammar quotes from Smyth are fine, but Smyth's grammar is a grammar of Classical Greek usage, not a grammar of Koine Greek, and the rule referred to is not absolute. As everybody knows, Greek isn't that rigid and the gospel authors weren't great Greek literati. For a discussion of this complex problem see G.B Winer p.163 ff., the authority on Koine Greek.

The translation:

the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved seems at first sight possible but:

-A: it implies that stricto sensu Jesus had only two disciples: Peter and John, which is totally absurd

"She runs to the other disciple (, the one) whom Jesus loved."

If predicative, the relative clause can be omitted without affecting the meaning of the sentence (this is the easy and infallible trick we learn in school to distinguish relative clauses with and without a comma, right?):

She runs to Peter and to the other disciple

Conclusion: Jesus had only two disciples, whom the reader already knows about.

This alone shows that the relative clause is not predicative but attributive. To put it very simply, you can't add a comma here because "whom Jesus loved" is absolutely necessary for understanding who the other disciple is.

-B: it doen't take into account the change of verb from agapao to phileo in the relative clause.

One also could ask the question of why the author didn't simply say "she runs to the disciple whom Jesus loved". After all, this is how the first disciple has always been referred to up till now in the narrative. Why addd "allon" (other)? To prevent readers from thinking that Peter wasn't a disciple of Jesus'? But everyone knew that already!

One also wonders why the beloved disciple of John 19:26 is translated unanimously as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". If the rule about predicative and attributive relative clauses were absolutely valid, we would expect:

He saw the disciple, the one whom he loved, standing nearby

But most translations have: "the disciple whom he loved standing nearby", without a comma (see NASB, RSV, NKJV). Here translators didn't go out of their way to avoid any misinterpretations. :huh: :Cheeky:

The fact remains that half the translations now available opt for the simple "she comes to the other disciple whom Jesus loved", including NASB R.Young, ASV, HNV, Webster and Latin Vulgate. This rendering can be defended not only on linguistic grounds, but also on exegetical ones. In other words, if one reads the fourth gospel in its entirety one sees that another disciple whom Jesus loved as a relative (ephilei instead of egapa) is quite, quite possible. For me it is more than just possible, it is necessary!

It's really worth playing this game. And I apologize for advancing such a daring theory with only seventy posts on my account.

Once the identity of that second beloved disciple is found, the whole fourth Gospel shines with a new light and this is ultimately the most convincing a posteriori reason for adopting the translation that I, with (unknowing) others, suggest.

My hypothesis is that the first disciple is Mary the Magdalen and that the second disciple is a very close relative of Jesus'. This hypothesis can be tested. The trouble with people here is that they don't even contemplate the possibility that the hypothesis might be marginally valid, which naturally means that they don't try to test it.

The test is: If the other disciple is X, then...

Are these further inferences acceptable, plausible? I say they are.

Of all people present in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, whom do you think would be most interested in knowing that something had happened to Jesus' body? John, the son of Zebedee? Someone only mentioned once and in passing in apocryphal chapter 21? No, never...

And since John would have been hiding with Peter in the same place, why does the text say "she runs to Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved"?

Someone infinitely more important to Jesus was in Jerusalem, who must have been of Jesus' priority list for hearing the news of the resurrection, the news of his rebirth.

Some marginal Christian traditions speak about it...

Salve!

Jag :devil3:

Chili

So let me present my not so daring theory when I lean on a purgatory play called "Coriolanus."

A brief introduction would help.

Joseph came for the body of Jesus along with Nicodemus who once in the depth of night had told Joseph that he must be born again.

Much later, they came together for the body and placed it in the tomb that Joseph had hewn as if with his own hands on the place where Jesus was crucified which was close at hand etc. etc. This all means that the whole thing took place in the mind of Joseph the upright Jew, who was know to be a carpenter because carpenters are known to 'make' many things. Since all things are made in sin Joseph was a big sinner and while pregnant with despair on account of these sins (from Joyce) he went to his state of mind as a child to give an account of himself when the cosmic Christ was born unto him. Here now his old bare naked ego is crucified.

Magdalene was the personification of the serpent in Joseph's conscious mind and the equivalent of Valeria in "Coriolanus" about whom Aufidius (Jesus here as the ego of Marcius) said: "Know thou first,/I loved the maid I married" (IV.v.114-15), to say that the Jesus crucified here was a Jew and Valeria (Magdalene) was his valor who returned to Rome where she joined forces with virgin Virgilia and voluminous Volumnia to become the united life of Rome = without a catfight in the mind of Joseph the Jew.

So according to Shakespeare Magdalene was the valor of Joseph which is greatly to be admired but not without direction and therefore John was the favorite disciple with the three women combined being the intuit direction of Joseph here now called John.

Let me say that if Valeria was his favorite disciple you'd have a Senecan tragedy on your hand which was foreshadowed by the butterfly allegory but prevented by Virgilia who did her work "in good faith" (I.iii.50).

It's been a long time since I read this play and I really don't want to give you a complete account of it.

S.C.Carlson

Winer might have been an authority back in 1882, when it was published in English, but the discovery of the papyri in the 1890s and afterwards has pretty much rendered Winer and other 19th cen. public domain Greek reference works obsolete.

Smyth was written after the papyri and is very good for Koine Greek, especially in combination with Blass-Debrunner-Funk (BDF), which assumes Smyth and details the differences. I cited the more thorough treatment in Smyth, but BDF's discussion in § 270 (p. 141) is consistent with Smyth's explanation.

If you feel that this "rule is not absolute," feel free to post a clear counter-example that demonstrates it. You're the one claiming the exception.