Question on other Disciple John 18:15

[Korah]

Hello Korah,
If I have to choose from a modern scholar or an ancient scholar, who would have closer personal knowledge of who wrote the Gospels, I would go with those ancient men.
Irenaeus, who was born and raised in the provence of Asia, where John taught and also who had chance to learn from Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, says that John was the author.
Irenaeus says in Book 3 against heresies.
1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
I add more weight to this than to a present day scholar who has no personal touch with the Gospels.
OK, we now know who your "credible authorities" are. The ECF, regardless of what RC scholars of our day say. And I never said John did not publish a gospel. You are reading in that John had no help in the process of writing John. The Muratorian Canon (ECF document of about 170 A. D.) says that a team of apostles including Andrew wrote John. Thus I list John as the Editor. (Leaving such obviously later items as John 21:23 -25 to be from a Redactor.) Your reliance on the Early Fathers leads to about the same conclusion that I come to.
Nope, I read all of the Gospels as one, but you fail to give me what I ask.
You said:"As we know from the Synoptics, Jesus sent his Apostles around Palestine on missions, but always with his buddy."
I know that Jesus did, on occasion, send his disciples out 2 x 2, but you are using this to try and prove Philip was the 2nd disciple in John 1:35-37. I ask for proof that he sent them out "always with their buddy". I know of no NT scripture saying that he did this nor that Philip and Andrew were on the buddy plan.
You're a stickler, all right. The Bible means exactly what it says and no more. Unless, of course, it suits your purpose to say it does mean more (as with reading in John as present in John 1 and John 18).
Maybe you should try staying at a Holiday Inn. Couldn't hurt.
I don't know what you mean here, but I'll take it as friendly camaraderie. You apparently sympathize with someone else no one listens to.
God Bless,
Yarddog

My comments above are underlined.
Korah

 

[Yarddog]

"Originally posted by Korah"
OK, we now know who your "credible authorities" are. The ECF, regardless of what RC scholars of our day say. And I never said John did not publish a gospel. You are reading in that John had no help in the process of writing John. The Muratorian Canon (ECF document of about 170 A. D.) says that a team of apostles including Andrew wrote John. Thus I list John as the Editor. (Leaving such obviously later items as John 21:23 -25 to be from a Redactor.) Your reliance on the Early Fathers leads to about the same conclusion that I come to.
​

Hello Korah,
Let me first say thanks for that document. It is a shame that only a fragment of it was found. So many writings didn't survive that could tell us so much about the early Church, such as Papias' 5 Books.

Now looking at the Muratorian Fragment. How do you get that John was an editor? You make this statement about me "You're a stickler, all right. The Bible means exactly what it says and no more. Unless, of course, it suits your purpose to say it does mean more (as with reading in John as present in John 1 and John 18).

But you certainly read into the Muratorian Fragment to say: "The Muratorian Canon (ECF document of about 170 A. D.) says that a team of apostles including Andrew wrote John.

Let's see what the fragment really says. First, this writing begins with the writer's last remark about the Gospel of Mark. From the context, the writer has been giving his review of the four Gospels. He starts this fragment with Luke then tells us of the 4th Gospel.

He says: "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples."

He doesn't say that this is the Gospel of John along with some others.

He then says: "To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write],"

They urge John to write, not others.

Then: "he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it."

You have added that Andrew and the others teamed with John to write it but in reality this only says that John wrote it while the others reviewed it. Nothing like you claim.

Next it says: "And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels,"

Here he shows that he has been reviewing all four Books of the Gospel. The various elements do not include the disciples and bishops that asked John to write his Gospel.

We should read each document in the light which it is written and not add to it, what is not there.

Maybe you should try staying at a Holiday Inn. Couldn't hurt.
I don't know what you mean here, but I'll take it as friendly camaraderie. You apparently sympathize with someone else no one listens to.
I'm sorry, the Holiday Inn bit is from a series of popular commercials.
Here is one example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno

God Bless,
Yarddog
​

 

[Korah]

Still the stickler.
Yes, the Muratorian Canon does prove no more for me than you find. But reading a little into it confirms what I had already determined by other means (namely Internal Criticism), that Andrew was the first one involved in it (he wrote the Signs Gospel), that a team of apostles was involved, and John collected it together and added his own recollections. Someone else added redactional comments, but the name of John was nevertheless attached to it as the final apostle involved.
By limiting the Apostle John to only a partial role, I get around all the hefty proofs that the Apostle John could not have written the whole thing. And getting back on topic, one of the most sure disproofs is that John, a mere Galilean Fisherman, could have been the disciple known to the high priest. Though I differ with the majority of scholars who dismiss John as the Beloved Disciple, I join them in the certainty that John was not the disciple known to the high priest.
Korah

 

[Yarddog]

Still the stickler.
Yes, the Muratorian Canon does prove no more for me than you find. But reading a little into it confirms what I had already determined by other means (namely Internal Criticism), that Andrew was the first one involved in it (he wrote the Signs Gospel), that a team of apostles was involved, and John collected it together and added his own recollections. Someone else added redactional comments, but the name of John was nevertheless attached to it as the final apostle involved.

Hello Korah,
No, reading into does not "confirm" anything. It seems that a person with a Degree in History would seek proof instead of trying to invent it. But then again you do have a Master's in Accounting and we know how them CPA's like to "pencil whip" those numbers into saying what their clients want them to be. (Hey, I do my own taxes, so I think I may have "read into" my deductions once or twice.)

By limiting the Apostle John to only a partial role, I get around all the hefty proofs that the Apostle John could not have written the whole thing.

Why, may I ask, does one have to prove that John wrote the whole thing. The hefty proofs, which you seem to be doing is trying to prove that he didn't. You fail to do that, so why don't you accept that he did. No hefty proof there.

And getting back on topic, one of the most sure disproofs is that John, a mere Galilean Fisherman, could have been the disciple known to the high priest. Though I differ with the majority of scholars who dismiss John as the Beloved Disciple, I join them in the certainty that John was not the disciple known to the high priest.
Korah

You may be correct on this matter because we have no way of knowing which disciple it was, toher than being one of the 12. I have read that Salome, John's mother, was supposed to be the daughter of a Jewish priest. I have no idea where that tradition may have come from. Maybe they "read into" things to make it fit their belief. (I don't know why someone would do that, do you?)

It's been fun,
God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Korah]

You may be correct on this matter because we have no way of knowing which disciple it was, toher than being one of the 12. I have read that Salome, John's mother, was supposed to be the daughter of a Jewish priest. I have no idea where that tradition may have come from. Maybe they "read into" things to make it fit their belief. (I don't know why someone would do that, do you?)
It's been fun,
God Bless,
Yarddog

You seem to be signing off on this, so I'll just comment on your last claim here. Why on earth do you think "another disciple" of John 18:15-16 had to be one of the 12? We read in John 19:38 that Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus. Apparently Nicodemus as well. Wouldn't that mean that "another disciple" does not have to be one of the 12? (Interesting point there--either one would seem a likely candidate for the 18:15 disciple.) And most people would concede that Jesus had hundreds or thousands of disciple by the time of His Crucifixion.

 

[Yarddog]

Hello Korah,
Sorry for not getting back sooner but we've been dealing with the remnants of hurricane Ike.
You say:
You seem to be signing off on this, so I'll just comment on your last claim here. Why on earth do you think "another disciple" of John 18:15-16 had to be one of the 12?

What disciples were with Jesus at the Last Supper and in the Garden when he was arrested? Where does John hint that another of his disciple show up?

You say:
We read in John 19:38 that Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus.

There are some problems for me on this. First, why does John mention Joseph by name in 19 but fail in 18? Most authors cite the name at first entrance of a character into a story.

Next, we see this about Joseph.
John 19
38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly a disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus. And Pilate permitted it. So he came and took his body.

John tells us that Jospeh is secretly a disciple because he fears the Jews, but in John 18 the "other disciple" is freely helping Jesus.
15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
16 But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.

Joseph being the other disciple just doesn't hold up to logic.
You say:
Apparently Nicodemus as well.

Where do we see that Nicodemus was a "disciple." He was a member of the Pharisees and was surely present at the trial but like Joseph didn't agree with the descision.

Again, this does not fit.

Wouldn't that mean that "another disciple" does not have to be one of the 12? (Interesting point there--either one would seem a likely candidate for the 18:15 disciple.) And most people would concede that Jesus had hundreds or thousands of disciple by the time of His Crucifixion.

Most people would agree that he had 100's or 1000's of disciples? There were about 120 together in Acts 1 but we don't see where he had 100's or 1000's.
Do you put all people that believed in him as his disciples or the ones that followed him?

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Korah]

Anyone notice the irony in that this thread that's so limited in scope that it's about "other disciple" in John 18:15 has now devolved into whether Jesus had "other disciples" at all?
Next will be whether Jesus had any disciples at all?

 

[Yarddog]

Anyone notice the irony in that this thread that's so limited in scope that it's about "other disciple" in John 18:15 has now devolved into whether Jesus had "other disciples" at all?
Next will be whether Jesus had any disciples at all?

Hello Korah,
Since the only ones conversing on this thread is the two of us, your above statement is most likely intended for me.

It also shows why you may have a problem with John because you seem to add so much into what is not there.

May I ask how you came by this conclusion because there is nothing in any of my post which would give anyone the idea that I was saying that.

Yarddog

 

[brinny]

It's John, yes? And is the one that Jesus referred to as a son of thunder because he was fiery? Is it he who asked Jesus to or he himself should bring fire from heaven and zap some ignorant people?

I haven't actually done a study on John...but is he the one?

 

[Korah]

Hello Korah,
Since the only ones conversing on this thread is the two of us, your above statement is most likely intended for me.
It also shows why you may have a problem with John because you seem to add so much into what is not there.
May I ask how you came by this conclusion because there is nothing in any of my post which would give anyone the idea that I was saying that.
Yarddog

How about this from your post #24?:

You may be correct on this matter because we have no way of knowing which disciple it was, toher than being one of the 12.

And no, I was not expecting you or anyone to deny Jesus had disciples. What I satirized was your mistake (a rather common one) in identifying 12 disciples = 12 apostles.
In your Post #26 you correct yourself, but without acknowledging your mistake in #24. By #28 you had forgotten that you originally drew a conclusion based on your false premise.

 

[Korah]

It's John, yes? And is the one that Jesus referred to as a son of thunder because he was fiery? Is it he who asked Jesus to or he himself should bring fire from heaven and zap some ignorant people?

I haven't actually done a study on John...but is he the one?

That's the old view. But it's almost universally discarded now by any open-minded scholars. A Galilean fisherman just doesn't fit.
On the other hand, that John the Apostle was the Beloved Disciple (but not "another disciple" in John 18:15) is both the traditional view and a quite reasonable view.
Korah

 

[brinny]

Hello Korah. Why was it discarded?

 

[MamaZ]

Well it does not give the name of the other disciple and we know that Jesus had more than just the 12 following him.

 

[brinny]

Ok, let's see now, it possibly is John...the Bible apparently does not clarify one way or the other....so i s'pose we come to our own conclusions.....and i s'pose however we interpret it, it will be clarified once we see Him face to face......

but hey, i'll haf'ta join Him in that big ol' celebration banquet, where He rejoices over me with singin' first

 

[Yarddog]

Hello Korah,

How about this from your post #24?:

And no, I was not expecting you or anyone to deny Jesus had disciples. What I satirized was your mistake (a rather common one) in identifying 12 disciples = 12 apostles.

Actually you are wrong in your interpretation of what I said. Is that irony?
Actually a better bit of satire is the point that I made in post #24.
Maybe they "read into" things to make it fit their belief. (I don't know why someone would do that, do you?)

Let's look at what we had been speaking of.

You had said this in post #23:
"And getting back on topic, one of the most sure disproofs is that John, a mere Galilean Fisherman, could have been the disciple known to the high priest. Though I differ with the majority of scholars who dismiss John as the Beloved Disciple, I join them in the certainty that John was not the disciple known to the high priest."

My reply to this was:
"You may be correct on this matter because we have no way of knowing which disciple it was, toher than being one of the 12. I have read that Salome, John's mother, was supposed to be the daughter of a Jewish priest. I have no idea where that tradition may have come from. Maybe they "read into" things to make it fit their belief. (I don't know why someone would do that, do you?)"

(I do acknowledge not proofreading and correcting my spelling for "other.")
I was acknowledging that we really cannot prove who the "other disciple" was. I had already stated my reasons for the belief that it was John, but being able to positively prove it, I can't see how that can be done.

In you next post #25 you ask:
Why on earth do you think "another disciple" of John 18:15-16 had to be one of the 12?

I then reply to that in post #26
"What disciples were with Jesus at the Last Supper and in the Garden when he was arrested? Where does John hint that another of his disciple show up?"

Now you say:
"In your Post #26 you correct yourself, but without acknowledging your mistake in #24. By #28 you had forgotten that you originally drew a conclusion based on your false premise."

What is my mistake? Where did I correct myself? Or have you been reading into what I wrote as you admit, in post #23, you read into John and the Muratorian Canon?

In post #27 you say:
Anyone notice the irony in that this thread that's so limited in scope that it's about "other disciple" in John 18:15 has now devolved into whether Jesus had "other disciples" at all?

Now answer my question from post #28:
"May I ask how you came by this conclusion because there is nothing in any of my post which would give anyone the idea that I was saying that."

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Yarddog]

Well it does not give the name of the other disciple and we know that Jesus had more than just the 12 following him.

Hello Ma,

If you check, John did not use the word "apostle" in his Gospel, but he did denote the twelve in John 6:67,70,& 71, and in 20:24.

Did Jesus have other disciples? Yes, he did. We know from Acts 1 that there were 120 believers together in the room at Pentacost. They chose a new Apostle from the group that had always been with them. The name proposed were Barsabbus and Matthias.

I pointed out to Korah in post #12, that the term "other disciple" only appears 5 times in the New Testament. They are all in John.

Joh 18:16
while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.

Joh 20:2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
Joh 20:3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
Joh 20:4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
Joh 20:8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;
John seems to give us more information on who this is in Ch. 20:2, which I underlined above.

The early writers of the Church all agreed that this meant John. I pointed out in post #20 that Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, said that was this man.

Yarddog

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The early writers of the Church all agreed that this meant John. I pointed out in post #20 that Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, said that was this man.

Yarddog

How can that be proven? And why is Lazarus only mentioned in John and Luke?

John 12:10 Devising yet the Chief-priests that also the Lazarus they may be killing. 11 That many because of him were led away of the Judeans and believed into the Jesus.

Luke 16:26 And on all of these, between Us [NC Faith/Life] and Ye [OC Law/Death] a great chasm/casma <5490> hath been established, so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye not be able to, no yet thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276>.

 

[MamaZ]

well we can all guess about who it was. LOL.. All I know is that there were two disciples there. Peter and another.

 

[Yarddog]

How can that be proven?

Hey Lamb,

What do you mean, that Irenaeus said it or that the disciple that Jesus loved, mentioned in John is in fact John?

And why is Lazarus only mentioned in John and Luke?

Do you think that they were the same men or different? They appear to be different men to me.

Yarddog

 

[Korah]

...
I pointed out to Korah in post #12, that the term "other disciple" only appears 5 times in the New Testament. They are all in John.
Joh 18:16
while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
Joh 20:2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
Joh 20:3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
Joh 20:4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
Joh 20:8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;
John seems to give us more information on who this is in Ch. 20:2, which I underlined above.

The early writers of the Church all agreed that this meant John. I pointed out in post #20 that Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, said that was this man.

Yarddog

They agreed in all these cases? Including John 18:15, the verse in question? As I pointed out to you already, the form in 18:15 is more like "another disciple", not "the other disciple". Even if Polycarp had said it, not merely his pupil Irenaeus, the natural human characteristic is to inflate the importance of his teacher and his school. (Making a Galilean fisherman into a friend of the High Priest would be inflation indeed.)
At least you, as a Roman Catholic, are not such a hypocrite as the Protestants here who appeal to Tradition except when Tradition refutes them.
Korah