Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved

message: A present, this article is about a phrase, so the bolded entry should be italicized.  It may be better to make the article about a person.  In that case, an article can be inserted and the italics removed. -Acjelen 17:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: One element of identifying the Beloved Disciple is the question of who wrote the Gospel of John and whether the John in the gospel's title refers to the apostle and son of Zebedee or to some other man named John.  
:This is addressed at Authorship of John
In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).  
:It is this by definition.
An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England.  In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple. 
:No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.
But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a relationship with Jesus. 
:That's splitting hairs.
In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king
:He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the King James Version exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?
would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.  
:As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.
I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article.  -Acjelen 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which John is Which

message: 81.156.177.21 User, you do not "own" this article anymore than I do.  I found the information from the Secret Gospel of Mark to be fascinating.  I even suppose that the references to young men in Secret Mark could be the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in the Gospel of John.  I admit that some scholars see evidence of a mystery religion.  While I think that Jesus was asexual, others insist that he had to have been married, or even more think he might have been what we now mean with the term gay.  None of these issues are clearly stated in the canonical texts or the noncanonical texts, so I don't think we should validate one interpretation over the others by giving it preference in the Beloved Disciple article.  Information on the Lazarus story from John and other accounts of raising from the dead indicating part of a initiation rite into a mystery religion should be discussed in either the Lazarus article or in a new article (which I would probably find very interesting).  We might mention him as a candidate and briefly explain the reasons, but the majority of the discussion on the connection of Lazarus to initiation rites should be found in another article (with a link, of course).
Finally, I would respectfully ask that you improve upon others writing and not just revert back to your initial edit of the article. Thank you. -Acjelen 20:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: reference to the other disciple whom Jesus loved can be found in Mark 9:38_And John answered Him,saying Master,we saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followeth not us;and we forbade him,because he followeth not us.(this same quote is found in Luke 9:49)
In 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?
In John 21:23_Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,that that disciple would not die.
This is how and why the Disciples of Simon Peter started the myth of The Wandering Jew,to explain away(in negative terms)someone they felt was a threat to their church.For this same reason they also turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute even though the gospel contains no mention of this.
After all,the various gnostic and apocraphyl gospels may be in dispute,but one thing remains certain:only one apostle denied Jesus three times and tried to proclaim himself greatest of the twelve,and that was Simon Peter:The Prince Of Apostles.
:While this may have bearing on your relation with the church, etc., it does not have any direct bearing on the subject of this talk page: discussing how to improve the text of the article in keeping with the policies of WP. It is not a soapbox. Zuiram 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark 9:38_Luke 9:49 

message: In the Lenten devotional guide A Season for the Spirit, Martin L. Smith SSJE suggests that perhaps the disciple whom Jesus loved"...is never named, never individualized, so that we can more easily accept that he bears witness to an intimacy that is meant for each one of us.  The closeness that he enjoyed is a sign of the closeness that is mine and yours because we are in Christ and Christ is in us.
Is this reading sufficiently widespread or notable to merit inclusion in the article?  I can provide a full citation if it is.  I've been reading Smith's book over the course of Lent this year, and found it very inspirational, but I don't know whether it would be considered encyclopedic or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymity is purposeful. Any mainstream apologetic interpretation is encyclopedic, as long as it's a report of published remarks, which are cited in a note. This isn't a statement of fact from Wikipedia; it's a justification as offered by a specific Anglican. So, no problem!--Wetman 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — thanks!  I just wanted to make sure that this sort of exegesis was appropriate for Wikipedia — I could see a potential problem arising if people started putting in every sermon interpreting a given text, but I suppose that that's taken care of by the requirement of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purposeful anonymity? 

message: I have only ever heard of this phrase being reformed as 'John the Beloved' which has more poetry and beauty to it. Is it worth mentioning that he is also called by this name? Can I put it in at the top? ThePeg 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Name

message: In the popular science show, The Tomb of Jesus, the hypothesis is advanced that the Beloved Diciple may be Jesus' own son, and the reason for the anonymity is that the author wanted the Roman authorities to remain ignourant of his source's very existence. What does everyone think? 71.233.230.223 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I think non-Christian bible research considers the "Beloved Disciple" to be Mary Magdalene herself. --Drieakko 08:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The biggest argument yet found in this direction - and I've been driving it in depth for four years to double-check the Magdalene traditions of the French Midi as compared with the Ark traditions of Northern Europe, which have hard documented background, before certain Vatican claims - is the little detour Pierre Maury made just before Christmas 1303 to the hamlet of Pontihls, where the infamous Poussin tomb was located. Another factor for you to examine is the fact the recruiting base of the 10th Fretensis, who supplied the execution party, was Narbonne. Go research .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.170.247 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' Son by Mary Magdeline? 

message: authorship of johannie books shouldn't be discussed in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it should, as the beloved disciple is the author of one of those books. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Leadwind, I disagree with your today edits. In litterature you can find every positions about John authorship. It is not enough to cite only one text, all POVs shall be listed. The point is that John authorship can be presumed only by internal analysis, i.e. by guess. To demonstrate the falsity of the statement "all scholar agree..." I cite a recent text by scholar M. Barker -isbn 0567087166 (2000)- where at page 78 the scholar says that John wrote also the fourth Gospel. I remember it because I've read it last month, but if I look I can find many other examples. The author of Moby dick is Melville -by external proofs- so Wiki can use explicit statement. For John authorship the issue is by far more complicate with many positions and no external evidences So I strongly suggest to respect all POVs -including the faith POV- and list all of them. Or to discuss authorship of johannie books in the proper article and leave here only the statement you deleted, i.e. "most scholars consider". A ntv (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The best RSs out there are university-level textbook, and I'm just citing what mine says. If you can find a source of comparable quality that says something else, cite it. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's actually two university-level textbooks that say the beloved disciple wasn't John, not just Harris. If this is really an open question in contemporary academic circles, just find a good, academic source (preferably another textbook) that says so. My textbooks say that the case is closed, so that's what I write in the article. Citing RSs is how WP works. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just 2 minutes search on Google Books: From the above it is clear that the evidence in favor to Johannine authorship is by no mean negligable from pag 12 of Leon Morris The Gospel according to John (1995)  (you shoud also read the whole first chapter where the author support his statement). Or John remains the most likely candidate pag 13 of Scott Hahn The Gospel of John (2003) . Ok I gave you 3 clear reference of scholars who do NOT agree with you thesis. Because Wiki shall list all POVs, it is more honest to say "Most scholars", not "All scholars", something that is not true. Leon Morris text is a 843 page commentary that is by far of a level above university-level textbook. A ntv (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are religious. If you'd like to include a section on scholars who buck the academic trend and back a traditional Christian view, that would seem appropriate. As for Morris being "by far of a level above university-level textbook," are you stating a personal opinion, or are you paraphrasing WP policy? The verifiability policy (WP:v) says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." If there's a policy that puts Morris above Harris and Thiessen (two university-level textbooks), show us. Leadwind (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the point is if Morris is above Harris or viceversa? I agree with you: it is a POV. I dont say that Morris is right or not, but simply that he wrote a book published by respected publishing house. The same for the other references. We are in the field of the POVs. By the way, Stephen L. Harris was a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, so we cannot consider him NPOV: he has a own POV. I don't want that wiki states "John wrote the Gospel", but we shall list the existence also the other modern scholar POVs. To state "Modern scholars hold that the Apostle John did not write the gospel attributed to him" is false! I gave you three scholars that think the contrary. So I suggest to state something like "Most modern scholars hold that...". The issue is already analyzed in the proper article. We cannot synthesize a so complex issue in a simple sentence. Let's try to be NPOV. A ntv (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: thank you for you edit that is very correct. You are a great Wikipedian. The very problem of this kind of statements is that they are based on very weak evidences and supported almost only by a consensus in some circles of scholars. The main 'evidence' of not-Johnannine authorship is that it is difficult to imagine John to boast about being the beloved disciple. A 'not-a-evidence' in a scientific way to proceed. A reader of Wiki should realize whether a statement is supported by some evident proof (as an ancient papyrus) or simply by a guess generally shared in by scholars A ntv (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliments. Glad we could work it out. Leadwind (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Some things hardly change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: This page is about the beloved disciple. It's not about the phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved." So the title of this page should be "beloved disciple." Leadwind (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A ntv (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename page to "beloved disciple" 

message: The "one whom Jesus loved" in John 11 was Lazarus. Ben Witherington has made a very good argument that this is the very same beloved disciple as well as the very one who authored The Book of John. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessential1 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazarus, The Disciple whom Jesus Loved 

message: These statements seem to contradict each other:
Is it five or six?  Or is there something about the precise wording that allows both statements to be true? M-1 (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see only five verses: John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, each with one "loved" (four ἠγάπᾱ and one ἐφίλει—the central one). Iavs leroy (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five or Six?