Question on other Disciple John 18:15

[Yarddog]

As I pointed out to you already, the form in 18:15 is more like "another disciple", not "the other disciple".

Hello Korah,

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.

Surely you can agree that "another disciple" and "the other disciple" in these verses are the same person.

The way these terms are used by the writer would also give good evidence that the term refers to the other instances, which I have pointed to in John.

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

Hmmm, I suppose that may be a complement. It's good not to be such a hypocrite.

Yarddog

 

[Korah]

Hello Korah,

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.

Surely you can agree that "another disciple" and "the other disciple" in these verses are the same person.

The way these terms are used by the writer would also give good evidence that the term refers to the other instances, which I have pointed to in John.


Hmmm, I suppose that may be a complement. It's good not to be such a hypocrite.

Yarddog

Yes, a compliment. Not hypocritical as Protestants who take the Tradition asserting the Bible and disregard all other tradition.
About 18:15, you still don't get it. I don't care what your English translations say, the Greek is different for that one particular disciple (whoever he is, you say John the Apostle, I say John Mark). Yes, it's just one guy, but the New Jerusalem Bible (a RC version) uses three different translations: "another disciple", "This disciple", and "the other disciple known to the high priest." In Greek it's "allos" here, not " ton allon" as it is in John 20:2-3.
Korah

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, a compliment. Not hypocritical as Protestants who take the Tradition asserting the Bible and disregard all other tradition.
About 18:15, you still don't get it. I don't care what your English translations say, the Greek is different for that one particular disciple (whoever he is, you say John the Apostle, I say John Mark). Yes, it's just one guy, but the New Jerusalem Bible (a RC version) uses three different translations: "another disciple", "This disciple", and "the other disciple known to the high priest." In Greek it's "allos" here, not " ton allon" as it is in John 20:2-3.
Korah

Here is the greek wording word for word:

John 18:15 Followed yet to the Jesus Simon Peter, and The Other Disciple, the yet Disciple that was known to the chief-priest and together coming to the Jesus into the Court of the Chief-priest.

16 The yet Peter stood toward the door outside, came out then the Disciple, the Other the one known of the Chief-priest and told the doorkeeper and he led in the Peter.

Textus Rec.) John 18:15 hkolouqei de tw ihsou simwn petroV kai o alloV maqhthV o de maqhthV ekeinoV hn gnwstoV tw arcierei kai suneishlqen tw ihsou eiV thn aulhn tou arcierewV

Textus Rec.) John 18:16 o de petroV eisthkei proV th qura exw exhlqen oun o maqhthV o alloV oV hn gnwstoV tw arcierei kai eipen th qurwrw kai eishgagen ton

 

[Yarddog]

About 18:15, you still don't get it. I don't care what your English translations say, the Greek is different for that one particular disciple (whoever he is, you say John the Apostle, I say John Mark). Yes, it's just one guy, but the New Jerusalem Bible (a RC version) uses three different translations: "another disciple", "This disciple", and "the other disciple known to the high priest." In Greek it's "allos" here, not " ton allon" as it is in John 20:2-3.
Korah

Hello Korah,

Maybe you need to dumb it up for me. I can't see why using Greek makes a difference in these verses.

You that it is different for that one disciple, so let's look at the Greek wording.

18:15
kai allov maqhthv.

18:16
maqhthv o allov

We know that the two uses above were talking about the same person. Was it John, or Mark, or another? We can only truely guess.

20:2
ton allon maqhthn

20:3
kai o allov maqhthv,

20:4
kai o allov maqhthv

20:8
kai o allov maqhthv

These 4 verses are also talking about the same disciple, which we both agree is John, the disciple that Jesus loved.

There is almost no difference between the Greek in 18:15 and the Greek in 20: 3,4, & 8. Only the word "O" is present. I can't see enough difference here to show that 18;15 cannot be John.

Yarddog

 

[Korah]

Hello Korah,

Maybe you need to dumb it up for me. I can't see why using Greek makes a difference in these verses.

You that it is different for that one disciple, so let's look at the Greek wording.

18:15
kaiallov maqhthv.

18:16
maqhthvoallov

We know that the two uses above were talking about the same person. Was it John, or Mark, or another? We can only truely guess.

20:2
tonallonmaqhthn

20:3
kaioallovmaqhthv,

20:4
kaioallovmaqhthv

20:8
kaioallov maqhthv

These 4 verses are also talking about the same disciple, which we both agree is John, the disciple that Jesus loved.
There is almost no difference between the Greek in 18:15 and the Greek in 20: 3,4, & 8. Only the word "O" is present. I can't see enough difference here to show that 18;15 cannot be John.
Yarddog

You had said earlier you don't read Greek, but you're giving a good presentation above.
That said, we're at loggerheads. I didn't say which Greek text I'm using, and you didn't state yours either. In yours, the word for "other" is the same in Greek, "allon". This gets us into the very complicated study of Lower Criticism, the attempt to determine exactly what the original text really said. I suspect your Greek text is the Textus Receptus, which is full of errors in which scribes have harmonized agreement where none originally existed, both to use same forms of words within a gospel (as between John 18 and 20 here) and between one gospel and another.
My text is called the Concordant Greek Text. It is based primarily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. That leaves room for divergence from the even earlier papyri like P46 and P75, but those earlier papyri basically support Vaticanus and Sinaiticus against all the other textual families.
The upshot is that I can't prove you wrong, if your Greek quotes are from a legitimate Greek text. I can only say that my analysis is based on a text that I think is more likely correct than yours is. And I can't really say anything conclusive because I don't know what text you used.
Korah
Edited to add:
I'm a little to quick to give more compliments and to admit ignorance. Comparing back with LLOJ's preceeding post, we see that Yarddog is simply copying LLOJ's Greek, and LLOJ acknowledges that the text is merely the Textus Receptus, which is five centuries out of date. Everyone knows that the TR is lousy, except for the KJV-only cranks. So, Yarddog, you're too quick to rely on LLOJ's defective text. Unless you can make the same argument from a better text (and you can't), you're simply wrong.

 

[Yarddog]

Korah
Edited to add:
I'm a little to quick to give more compliments and to admit ignorance. Comparing back with LLOJ's preceeding post, we see that Yarddog is simply copying LLOJ's Greek, and LLOJ acknowledges that the text is merely the Textus Receptus, which is five centuries out of date. Everyone knows that the TR is lousy, except for the KJV-only cranks. So, Yarddog, you're too quick to rely on LLOJ's defective text. Unless you can make the same argument from a better text (and you can't), you're simply wrong.

HMMMMMM,
Yes you are quick, but not as you say. You are way too quick to assume and read into text.

If you look at the Greek wording for John 18:15, used by LLOJ, it is a bit different than what I provide. He also only gives only John 18:15 & 16, while I also provide John 20: 2,3,4, & 8.

When it comes to Greek, it is greek to me. I am simply going to a site with a Greek lexicon. I have no idea what "Textus whatever" they use, but it is most likely not what LLOJ uses because the wording is a bit different.

Yarddog

 

[Korah]

HMMMMMM,
Yes you are quick, but not as you say. You are way too quick to assume and read into text.

If you look at the Greek wording for John 18:15, used by LLOJ, it is a bit different than what I provide. He also only gives only John 18:15 & 16, while I also provide John 20: 2,3,4, & 8.

When it comes to Greek, it is greek to me. I am simply going to a site with a Greek lexicon. I have no idea what "Textus whatever" they use, but it is most likely not what LLOJ uses because the wording is a bit different.

Yarddog

Thanks for your efforts, Yarddog.
Yes, you apparently found a good text for John 20:2-4, that's what mine reads as well.
The problem is with the defective text LLOJ quoted. My Concordant Text has "allos", not "allon", in John 18:15-16. LLOJ was trying to help, I suppose, but his method of preferring the Textus Receptus is simply wrong.
Korah
Edited to add: closer study reveals that my Concordant Text disagrees with your transliteration of John 20:3,4, agreeing only with your 20:2. That makes my case less clear, I'll admit. The bigger picture is that in 18:15, 16, the text goes to great pains to say twice that this disciple was known to the high priest. In any case, a difference of wording between John 18:15, 16 and John 20:2,3,4 does not prove they are different people, nor would an identity of words and style prove they were the same person.
It still comes down to my opinion that the disciple known to the High Priest was John Mark, and you say that it's John the Apostle. (You did not rise to my challenge to tell us whether the ECF specifically taught that John 18:15,16 was John the Apostle in addition to the Beloved Disciple being John the Apostle.)
Korah

 

[Yarddog]

Hey Korah,

It's been fun. Hope to chat again.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Alethes]

Does anyone have a view on who this "other disciple" is in John 18:15? Just curious. Thanks.

John 18:15 Followed yet to the Jesus Simon Peter, and the other Disciple, the yet Disciple that was known to the chief-priest and together coming to the Jesus into the Court of the Chief-priest.

I agree with E. W. Bullinger notes in The Campanion Bible, p. 1565: That this was iJohn himself is highly improbable. It is more probable that the disciple following Jesus was someone of influence as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathaea, both members of the Sanhedrin."

 

[Alethes]

I always assumed it as John - 20:2 - the other disciple, whom Jesus loved

There are a large number of Christians who assume the disciple whom Jesus loved is John. However, John 21:20-25 does not tell us that John is "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

John 21:20:
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

John 21:21:
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?"

Why would Peter address the "Apostle" John as "this man?" Why did Peter not ask Jesus "and what shall the other disciples do?" That Peter singles out John only should have caught our attention.

John 20:22:
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

Jesus had just charged Peter with great responsibility when He said, "Follow me." But instead of focusing on his own responsibility, Peter began questioning Jesus on the responsibility of this "other disciple."

Jesus, in essence, said: "Peter, quit worrying about everyone else. You carry out your own responsibility. If I want this other disciple to remain unti I come what business is it of yours? Stop getting into other people's business and follow me."

John 21:23:
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?

Isn't it incredible that they so misinterpreted Jesus' words? But they did.

Nowhere in this chapter has God's Word identified and named the disciple "whom Jesus loved." t has to be one of the seven disciples who went fishing. All but two of those disciples were named. If one were Lazarus and he is referred to in verse 23, then Peter's question, Jesus' reply, and their misunderstanding of his reply can easily be explained.

Lazarus had been raised from the dead by Jesus and became one of his most dearly beloved disciples. In being raised from the dead, he had that in common with Jesus. It would explain why Peter would be wondering about him. It would also explain why the disciples thought that he too, like Jesus, would not again die. Since he had been raised from the dead, perhaps he too would live forever. They misunderstood Jesus' words because of their own misunderstanding.

John 21:24 and 25:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

This verse cannot be used to prove that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The disciple of verse 24 does not necessarily refer to "the disciple whom Jesus loved." This is an unwarranted assumption Verse 24 and 25 form a unit as a closing to the Gospel.

As verse 25 so clearly states that Jesus did so many things than are written in the Word of God.