Malachi151

No, see:

Gamera

I'm unclear how you deal with the emphasized sentence below. Are you saying the real author of the GJohn is James, or that this is an interpolation by a later redactor:

John 21: Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25

Malachi151

No differently than normal scholarship. From my Harper Collins Study Bible:

stuart shepherd

Actually, the real truth is that John's Gospel was written about 100 years after the death of Jesus.

Look at John chapter 5, the healing at the pool of Bethesda.
The pool was always there, but the temple with the 5 porches was built by the roman Emperor, Hadrian, after the second Jewish revolt, as a temple for the god Asclepius.
If you read John 5, you will note that this is a pagan type of healing ritual. It would have not been permitted, or strongly protested if it took place prior to the first Jesish revolt of 70CE.

Stuart Shepherd

Malachi151

Yeah, I agree, it was probably written around 120, but I don't think that modern scholarship has a problem with that, or with simply chalking up his "testimony" claims to simple rhetoric.

Look at the scriptures, they all have a tendency towards testifying to the absolute truth of unsupported claims.

TedM

Interesting theory. I'd add this possible support from GJohn:

James, the successor, likely was known to the high priest. However, this passage doesn't say this is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

General problems:

James is paired with John in the gospels. John traditionally is that disciple.

Unfortunately, none of the passages you give identify the successor James as being the brother of John. It IS indicated that his title "the Just", or MAYBE "the brother of the Lord". But, not "the beloved".

Interesting, James and John are not mentioned at all in the gospel of John, other than one passage in ch 21 (which some think was added later) which mentions the "sons of Zebedee". It is possible that the reference a few sentences later that mentions the "beloved" is referring to James or John, but not necessary since there were 2 other unnamed disciples mentioned.

Unfortunately, the earliest references don't refer to ANY disciple as "beloved" other than GJohn. And, the references in GJOHN that ARE about the beloved don't say anything about him becoming the successor (in fact Ch 21 would be more suggestive of PETER as the successor)

So, you are left with deciding whether "brother of the Lord", and "the Just" can be equated to "the beloved", or whether "beloved" implies being a successor. You have to reject the reference in Acts to James being killed, and for it to be understandable that the detailed passage about James by Hegessipus would not refer to him as the "beloved". And, you have to believe that tradition switched the title over from James to John, without leaving a trace. Why would it do that?

Some believe that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple. I'm not a big fan of some of the wild theories out there about her, but I think there may be something to this. Some of the arguments for it are not too shabby, as she very well could have been quite close to Jesus the person, as well as the writer of GJohn, as (some say) gnostic tradition has held. I also think the title fits a woman a lot better than a man.

I don't want to debate. Just throwing in my 2 cents. Anyway, interesting. take care,

ted

Malachi151

Oh, it just hit me, this is WHY the disciple is never named! The beloved disciple IS James son of Zebedee, but his name was either removed from the Gospel or John didn't include it because by the time that this Gospel was written James was a pariah!

The writer was talking about this figure who had become a pariah, that makes perfect sense, that's why he doesn't name him!

Malachi151

I just realized something else. JAMES IS NEVER MENTIONED IN JOHN! Boom, James IS the beloved disciple, he has to be. He is NEVER mentioned by name, damn, I think my explanation is right, James had become a pariah, and thus John never mentioned his name! This would explain a line about him being killed in Acts was insert.

This also explains why John has Jesus look upon the disciple whom he loved and say to Mary, "this is your son". The disciple was James son of Zebedee, who was written about like this because James son of Zebedee was James the Just, a pillar of the Christian community in Judea, leader of the sect of messianic Jews who viewed Jesus a a messiah for the JEWISH people only, but who was called among the Judean Jews "the brother of the Lord".

This explains Paul, this explains the crucifixion scene in John, this explains why James is not named in John, this explains Acts, it explains the early confusion over James the Just this issue in church tradition. I think this is really a major key in explaining a ton of things about the Gospels and early Christianity.

Ben C Smith

1. James of Zebedee is the beloved disciple because it is too much of a coincidence that the trio of Peter, James, and John should have two alternating members named James; therefore James of Zebedee is the brother of the Lord, which is why he is called beloved (Malachi151).

2. John of Zebedee is the beloved disciple because, after all, it is the gospel of John (traditional view).

3. James the just (but not of Zebedee) is the beloved disciple because he was the brother of the Lord, which is why he was called beloved (James Tabor).

4. Thomas is the beloved disciple because he is said in John 20.25 to know a detail of the crucifixion (the spear in the side) that only the beloved disciple would have known, according to John 19.34-35 (James Charlesworth).

5. Lazarus is the beloved disciple because only he, in John 11.3, is called the one that Jesus loved, paralleling the disciple that Jesus loved; see also 11.36 (Pheme Perkins, IIRC).

6. Mary Magdalene is the beloved disciple because according to the gospel of Philip she used to kiss Jesus on the mouth, which is why she was called beloved, and later editors of John placed her in scenes with the beloved disciple precisely in order to sever the connection (Ramon Jusino).

7. John the elder (but not of Zebedee, and not the just) is the beloved disciple because, from a close examination of the Papias fragments, we can tell that he was the author of the gospel; and his name was John (Martin Hengel).

8. The beloved disciple is a fiction, or an ideal, or some completely unknown follower whom later tradition forgot (various authors).

Did I miss any?

Ben.

ETA: Oh, I just remembered. I think John Mark has also been suggested, but I do not remember the details.

Malachi151

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Disciples.htm

James son of Zebedee is the only major "disciple" that is not names in John, but that is named in the synoptics.

This is a duplicate of the synoptic introduction scene, but while it says that there are four disciples, only three are named. From the other synoptics we know that the 4th and unnamed disciple has to be James son of Zebedee.

3-8 that you list are just fantasies, they don't help to explain anything. The case for James son of Zebedee is not only a perfect fit, but it helps to explain tons of stuff outside of the Gospel itself.