Tagging of "he" in John 19:35

Graham Criddle

The tagging shown above shows John (son of Zebedee) as the one who testifies to some of the events at the cross.

I find this interesting as there is significant debate over who this person actually was.

Anyone from Logos able to comment on this one?

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Milford Charles Murray

Peace, Graham! *smile* Thanks for your post! I'm not from Logos as you know; however, I've always believe that this was the young John! *smile*

And, when I look at this passage, I'm always reminded of:

The Word of Life

1　^aThat which was ^bfrom the beginning, ^cwhich we have heard, ^dwhich we have seen with our eyes, ^ewhich we looked upon and ^fhave touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— ²^gthe life ^hwas made manifest, and we have seen it, and ⁱtestify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, ^awhich was with the Father and ^hwas made manifest to us— ³^cthat which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed ^jour fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴And we are writing these things so ^kthat our¹ joy may be complete.

again, thanks for your post! I'd also love to hear from Logos! Indeed! *smile*

Lee

If not John, what are the alternatives?

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502019#Comment_502019

If not John, what are the alternatives?

Peace, Lee! *smile* My question also! Up to now I've never heard of any alternatives ............. I started using Lenski around 1959 and still find him a favourite ...

I was a little surprised, then, when I just now read this section, and even in Lenski's time, there were those who disputed John's authorship --

Here is Lenski in case you want to peruse ... Blessings!

35) And he that has seen has borne testimony; and genuine is his testimony. And that one knows that he says things true, in order that you, too, may believe. So weighty is what John reports that he, too, now does something entirely exceptional. No evangelist, and not even John in the rest of his Gospel, breaks the narrative to address his readers personally and to assure them in regard to his testimony. Yet John now does this. It ought to go without saying that he refers to himself when he writes, “he that has seen.” John loves these perfects which carry the past acts down to their present effects. This perfect means that what John once saw is still, as it were, vividly before his eyes although many years have passed. With this perfect the next accords: “he has borne testimony,” namely right here in this record, and this testimony, once borne, now stands indefinitely and speaks on and on. We know that John never mentions himself or any member of his family or wider relationship by name. He always uses the third person and even this only when literally compelled to do so. Yet critics have used the present passage in their efforts to deny John’s authorship of this Gospel. Here the supposed writer forgets himself in an impersonation of John and speaks of John without detecting that his impersonation is thus betrayed. Those who will may believe in such a forger. We cannot, of course, share their views.

“Genuine is his testimony,” ἀληθινή, the adjective being emphatic. His testimony is competent, based on personal vision, not on what others have seen and told him. Any court would accept his testimony.

The battle about the next statement will, no doubt, continue indefinitely: “and that one knows that he says things true,” ἀληθῆ, things really so, not mere imaginings or falsifications. Who is referred to by ἐκεῖνος? Is it John himself or a second witness corroborating John? The word itself can be understood in either way. Sometimes it implies a contrast with another, yet often it does not. A case in point for the latter is 9:37; R. 707 presents his personal opinion as far as the language is concerned. B.-D. 291, 6 falls back on textual criticism, as though this makes it uncertain whether John wrote v. 35; but the textual evidence is solid for the genuineness of v. 35, the only variant reading of the verse amounts to nothing. This means that no one has really been able to glean anything decisive from the words as they stand. We must fall back on other considerations. John has made the matter one of testimony and has shown that his testimony is competent. If by ἐκεῖνος he refers to himself, he would appeal for the truth of his testimony only to his own consciousness that he is indeed stating the truth. But this would add nothing whatever to his testimony, for who would think of charging him with something that he feels is not true, or that, to say the least, is doubtful to his own mind? He has shown us that in the case of Jesus himself, when it comes to testimony, Jesus offered more than his own word although he knew his own testimony to be true. Jesus appeals to the corroborating testimony of the Baptist (5:32, etc.), of his works (5:36; 14:10), and of his Father in the Scriptures (5:37, etc., 8:18). Can John do less when he appears as a witness? Can he exempt himself from this essential requirement in regard to testimony, that whatever he testifies must be corroborated and supported by another witness in order to evoke credence?

It is thus that ἐκεῖνος comes to refer to a second witness, who indeed knows that what John has here testified is true and a statement of the facts. John might have in mind the thought that this other is God himself, and an appeal to him would be proper; for John at once quotes two Scripture passages which might be regarded as God’s corroborating testimony. Yet thus far in the narrative God has not been mentioned in any way while, on the other hand, Jesus has appeared as the supreme person. In addition, ἐκεῖνος is repeatedly used by John without an antecedent as an emphatic designation for Jesus: “HE” (1 John 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17), much as others used the word during the lifetime of Jesus (17:11; 9:28; 19:21). So it is Jesus to whom John appeals as corroborating his witness as being true. Even in 3 John 12 Demetrius has testimony from more than one source; and when John there says “we, too, testify,” he even adds to this, “thou knowest that our testimony is true.”

The purpose clause, “in order that you, too, may believe,” is best construed with the verb “says”; the verb “has borne testimony” is too far away. The aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε (not the present, which some texts have) implies definite and final believing. The present πιστεύητε would speak of only continued believing which goes on without disturbance. John is writing to those who already believe; he addresses them personally, “you, too.” They are to believe just as John himself does. The verb, however, has no object but is used in a broad way regarding faith in general and is not restricted to the exceptional facts John has just stated. His genuine and truthful testimony regarding the death of Jesus and regarding what occurred with his body has as its purpose the enduring faith of the entire church. As John writes he thinks of himself as being present in the congregation of believers who hear these words read, and thus the personal note creeps in. He does the same in 20:31, where his purpose is more fully stated: “in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” etc.

36) For these things occurred in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be shattered. And again another Scripture says, They shall look on him whom they did pierce through. So many hinge the solemn assurance of v. 35 on the blood and the water as though this is the thing John wants us to believe above all else. Yet beyond the mere mention of blood and water John has nothing further to say about blood and water. “These things,” he tells us, refer to the literal fulfillment of two Scripture passages, one regarding the fact that not a bone of Jesus’ body should be shattered, the other regarding the piercing of his body. John employs the regular formula for introducing Scripture quotations: “in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” This remarkable fulfillment of Scripture is to lend abiding support to our faith.^{^[1]}

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

^{^[1]} Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The interpretation of St. John’s gospel (pp. 1317–1320). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502052#Comment_502052

It's been a good day! Graham, glad you "nudged" me to do a bit of studying, and -- again! -- I'm glad you posted ...

Looked at a dozen or so of my commentary collections and will share my new favourite for that section -- Leon Morris - NICNT - ...

............. and then off to be for hopefully a blessed night's sleep ....

35 This incident evidently made a profound impression on the mind of the Evangelist. He brings out emphatically that he has good evidence for what he is saying. This evidence is surely the testimony of the Beloved Disciple. He is mentioned in verses 26–27, the last reference to the followers of Jesus before this verse. Moreover, the writer mentions no other disciple as having been present at the scene. The identification is not certain, but it is probable.⁹⁷ Be that as it may, there was someone there who saw it and who has borne his testimony,⁹⁸ a testimony that is reliable.⁹⁹ This may be understood in more ways than one. The writer may be referring to himself as a witness, which seems to be the meaning in Weymouth’s translation: “This statement is the testimony of an eye-witness, and it is true. He knows that he is telling the truth—in order that you may believe.”¹⁰⁰ Or the writer may be distinguishing between himself as the author and another man who is the witness. Rieu sees it that way: “This is vouched for by the man who saw it, and his evidence may be relied on. Also, to assure you, the writer knows that he is telling the truth.¹⁰¹ It is also possible that the writer is calling God to witness, as Moffatt renders: “He who saw it has borne witness (his witness is true; God knows he is telling the truth), that you may believe.”¹⁰² When experts differ so widely it is unwise to be dogmatic. I incline to the view that the first suggestion is the correct one, but one cannot be sure. What is plain is that John is placing some emphasis on the fact that this incident may be relied on.¹⁰³ He is maintaining that it is recorded “so that you also may believe.”¹⁰⁴ The production of faith in the readers is the main purpose for the writing of this Gospel (20:31).¹⁰⁵ John does not explain how faith will result from the narration of the issuing of water and blood from the side of the crucified Savior, but clearly he expected it to do so.¹⁰⁶

36 Characteristically John finds a fulfillment of Scripture in these happenings. The purpose of God had to be fulfilled.¹⁰⁷ He refers to two separate things, the fact that Jesus’ bones were not broken and the fact that his side was pierced. It is really extraordinary that both these things happened. Jesus escaped the breaking of the legs though this happened to both those crucified with him, and he experienced a hard spear thrust, which appears to have been most unusual but which yet did no bone damage. Most commentators think that the passage John has in mind for the first is Exodus 12:46 or Numbers 9:12, both referring to the Passover (or perhaps Exod. 12:10, LXX). When that sacrifice was instituted the command was given that not one bone of the victim was to be broken. If this is the allusion, John is referring to Jesus as the perfect Passover offering (cf. the death at the time of the killing of the Passover sacrifices, v. 14, and the use of hyssop, v. 29). This is a motif that we have seen elsewhere, and it is the most likely explanation of this passage. Those who do not see the Passover here prefer a reference to Psalm 34:20, which refers in a general way to God’s care for his own. It contains the specific assertion that God “protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” This is possible, but it does not seem as probable as the Passover allusion.^{108^[1]}

⁹⁷ Cf. W. G. Kümmel, “Since only the Beloved Disciple was mentioned as present at the cross (in addition to the women), it is natural to find him mentioned in the ἑωρακώς and witness of 19:35, though, to be sure, that is not clearly said” (Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1966], p. 166).

⁹⁸ The perfect, μεμαρτύρηκεν, will signify “he has set it on permanent record.”

⁹⁹ Plummer brings out the force of it: “S. John first says that his evidence is adequate; then he adds that the contents of it are true. Testimony may be sufficient (e.g. of a competent eyewitness) but false: or it may be insufficient (e.g. of a half-witted child) but true. S. John declares that his testimony is both sufficient and true.” For the importance of witness in this Gospel see on 1:7, and for ἀληθινός on 1:9. This is one of the places where Kilpatrick reads ἀληθής (with א 124 Chrys).

Weymouth R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech (London, 1907)

¹⁰⁰ Lagrange notes an objection to understanding the writer to be referring to himself on the grounds that he has twice recorded the truth that a man’s witness to himself is not valid (5:31; 8:13; he himself, however, thinks that the writer is the witness). This would have more weight if he were in fact bearing witness to himself here. But he is not. It is witness to an observed fact that is meant. Barclay detects a reference to the writer: “he goes out of his way to say that this is an eye-witness account of what actually happened, and that he personally guarantees that it is true.” That ἐκεῖνος is not impossible with reference to the writer is shown by Josephus’s use of the pronoun in just this way (Bell. 3.202; cf. also John 9:37). Support for the view that the writer is referring to himself may perhaps be found in the strong emphasis on personal witness in 1 John 1:1–3.

Rieu E. V. Rieu, The Four Gospels (Penguin Books, 1952)

¹⁰¹ The principal advantage of this view (and it is a considerable one) is that it is a very natural way of understanding ἐκεῖνος. Torrey maintains that ἐκεῖνος here reflects the Aramaic hahu gabra, “a common Jewish substitute for the pronoun of the first person singular.” An objection is the difficulty of seeing how the writer, if not an eyewitness himself, could know that the witness was speaking the truth, as he solemnly assures us is the case. Those who understand the words to refer to a witness other than that of the author often think of that witness as the Beloved Disciple. This, however, is not said.

Moffatt James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (London, n.d.)

¹⁰² This is sometimes supported by the contention that in this Gospel, apart from dialogue, ἐκεῖνος is generally emphatic and is often used of God or of Christ. Lagrange finds a reference to Christ, as does Hoskyns, who regards it as “almost necessary” to refer the words to our Lord. This, however, is not borne out by the facts. Dodd has shown that the usage of ἐκεῖνος in this Gospel supports the view that the reference is to the witness (HTFG, p. 134, n. 1). Bernard reminds us that John uses ἐκεῖνος not only of the Deity but quite often also of people, such as John the Baptist, (5:35), Moses (5:46), and the blind man (9:10). It requires more than this pronoun to demonstrate a reference to God or to Christ. Strachan sees a threefold witness: the Evangelist in v. 34, the Beloved Disciple in v. 35, and Christ himself, also in v. 35. This is attractive but hard to discern in the text. Incidentally John rarely uses καὶ ἐκεῖνος as here, preferring κἀκεῖνος.

¹⁰³ I.e., assuming we have the text of what he wrote at this point. Blass was most uncertain of this, saying, “In this passage, however, everything is doubtful, so far as criticism is concerned. There is doubt about the whole verse, which is wanting in e and Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate, about this particular clause, about the text of this clause, as Nonnus read ἐκεῖνον οἴδαμεν, etc.… The fact that so many theologians have based their theories as to the origin of the 4th Gospel on this verse and the meaning ordinarily attached to it is only explicable on the ground of a complete neglect of textual criticism” (Grammar of New Testament Greek [London, 1905], p. 172, n. 2). It may, however, be doubted whether Blass is being fair to the evidence. While the textual variants he notes should be weighed we should not attach to them more than their due weight. After all, there is a limit to the value we attach to the combination e, Cod. Fuldensis, and Nonnus. These can scarcely outweigh the mass of the authorities, especially since they do not all say the same thing. Turner is also hesitant about this verse. He draws attention to variation in John’s use of ἐκεῖνος and concludes, “it is inadvisable to build any theories of authorship on the notorious ἐκεῖνος (= he, the eye-witness) in Jn 19:35” (M, III, p. 46).

¹⁰⁴ If, as seems likely, the present subjunctive should be read, ἵνα μιστεύητε may be meant to indicate a continuing faith rather than merely an entry into faith. But many MSS read the aorist, so the point should not be pressed.

¹⁰⁵ J. Ramsey Michaels connects this verse with the confession of faith of the centurion recorded in Mark 15:39. He suggests a tentative identification of the centurion with the “witness” of this verse (CBQ, XXIX [1967], pp. 102–9). There is much that is speculative here, but Michaels certainly draws attention to the fact that John understands what he records to be for the purpose of establishing faith.

¹⁰⁶ Westcott has a very useful Additional Note on the interpretation of this passage among the Fathers. He cites many of them, both Greek and Latin.

¹⁰⁷ Note the significance of ἵνα.

¹⁰⁸ The correspondence with the Greek is not as close as in the case of the other two passages. For example, the words ὀστοῦν and αὐτοῦ are absent from Ps. 34:20, though present in the other two passages. There is poetic parallelism in the Psalm, but not in John or in the Pentateuchal passages. Moreover, the Psalm is concerned with the preservation of the righteous from death; it is concerned with saving his life, not with the condition of the bones in his corpse. The other two passages do refer to the treatment of a dead body. In favor of the reference to the Psalm are the facts that the Pentateuchal passages both give a command and are in the active, whereas the Psalm and John both represent a prediction and are passive. But these considerations do not outweigh the others.

^{^[1]} Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (pp. 725–727). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502057#Comment_502057

Sorry, I just noticed the OP is referring to ekeinos. It IS possible "ekeinos" refers to God. But I don't think the debate about John/God being the referent is such a lively or consequential one. Of course, for completeness' sake the referent data could state both. I don't know if it's necessary though.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502070#Comment_502070

Hi gents

Thanks for the various comments.

The NICNT extract from Milford demonstrates the issue well - outlining options for the referent being the "Beloved Disciple", the author of the gospel or God Himself.

But I don't think the debate about John/God being the referent is such a lively or consequential one

I'm not arguing specifically that there is a lively debate here but there is quite a debate about the identity of the beloved disciple and - with him being the possible referent here - I thought it strange that just the one option was mentioned.

For (possible) interest - the reason I was looking at this in the first place was that I was preparing for a Bible study on 3 John and came against the interesting comment on 3 John 12:

Notice how the last phrase here is quite like John 21:24: “we know his testimony is true” (cf. Jn 19:35). This may suggest that the Fourth Evangelist, as a member of the Johannine community, had read this letter and used its phraseology of the Beloved Disciple himself.51 We can see this in two respects: (1) the Fourth Evangelist took the terminology applied to Gaius here and applied it to the Beloved Disciple himself; (2) he used this little signature phrase found in 3 John 12 to indicate the connection between these letters and the source of the material in that Gospel.52 This would support the theory that the Gospel was edited and published after the death of the Beloved Disciple and so after this letter was written. Could the Fourth Evangelist be Demetrius, the one well attested and well spoken of by the community? This certainly is possible, but it cannot be proved. He could have been the Beloved Disciple’s scribe and messenger, in which case he would have known the Beloved Disciple’s style intimately. At the least he is a good candidate to have known where to find and how to collect the Johannine documents. It does seem likely that we should see Demetrius as the advance guard preparing for the old man’s visit with Gaius and for the confrontation with Diotrephes. What actually happened we do not know, though it seems likely that the visit from the old man did take place.

Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume I: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 595.

Not arguing for this one way or another but it adds another dimension to this debate[:)]

Graham

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502090#Comment_502090

Perhaps it is appropriate for me to rehash a suggestion I made in another thread:

1. State both possibilities.

2. Give a brief explanation in an optional new field called "Brief Explanation".

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502090#Comment_502090

Thank you to both of you! This has been a good way to start my day; and, I am appreciative! *smile*

Peace! ......... and may God give you Strength for the Day!

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502104#Comment_502104

Perhaps it is appropriate for me to rehash a suggestion I made in another thread:

1. State both possibilities.

2. Give a brief explanation in an optional new field called "Brief Explanation".

Works for me[Y]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502128#Comment_502128

Thank you to both of you! This has been a good way to start my day; and, I am appreciative! *smile*

Peace! ......... and may God give you Strength for the Day!

Thanks Milford

Blessings, Graham

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502141#Comment_502141

Perhaps it is appropriate for me to rehash a suggestion I made in another thread:

1. State both possibilities.

2. Give a brief explanation in an optional new field called "Brief Explanation".

Works for me

Each of these referent analyses requires judgment about who's intended. It's clearest when they're named, and very clear from context for a large majority of cases. But there are other cases, like this one, where honest readers might disagree and there isn't perfect consensus. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism for expressing multiple possibilities (or explanations), so we've had to pick what we viewed as the single leading opinion.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502246#Comment_502246

Thank you, Sean! Peace and Blessing! You -- and your compatriots! -- are immensely appreciated by myself! *smile* ......... and, I'm sure, many others !!!! eh???

Thanks for responding! Also, I would be extremely well-pleased if you really enjoyed your work as it seems you are working with and "handling" God's Word! Awesome indeed!

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502246#Comment_502246

Perhaps it is appropriate for me to rehash a suggestion I made in another thread:

1. State both possibilities.

2. Give a brief explanation in an optional new field called "Brief Explanation".

Works for me

Each of these referent analyses requires judgment about who's intended. It's clearest when they're named, and very clear from context for a large majority of cases. But there are other cases, like this one, where honest readers might disagree and there isn't perfect consensus. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism for expressing multiple possibilities (or explanations), so we've had to pick what we viewed as the single leading opinion.

Thanks Sean

Appreciate the comment, Graham

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502246#Comment_502246

Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism for expressing multiple possibilities (or explanations),

what an odd oversight[8-|] I'd be satisfied if I could just add a note saying "logos made a choice of ... but I prefer ... because ... see:<links to references>.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502246#Comment_502246

Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism for expressing multiple possibilities (or explanations), so we've had to pick what we viewed as the single leading opinion.

hmmmm..... sounds like a huge design error. There are lots of places where the text is vague.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504568#Comment_504568

If the text was genuinely vague (a lot of pronominal references in the minor prophets fell into this category), our practice was not to annotate it at all. We made a choice where we deemed there was significant consensus. While in an ideal world we might have annotated all the possibilities, that would have been a much larger project. So we made a practical choice to cover the vast majority of clear cases as best we could, in the interests of getting this data to Logos users.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504803#Comment_504803

Sean, your practice makes a lot of sense. However, the design not permitting the user to make annotations severely limits the usefulness of the feature. As I have found reading Jewish commentaries, what are "clear cases" is very much an effect of what one has been taught to question.[:D]

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504848#Comment_504848

what are "clear cases" is very much an effect of what one has been taught to question.

[Y]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/502052#Comment_502052

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504954#Comment_504954

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John.

And I tried hard to not imply that assumption in what I wrote.

i must try harder!

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504954#Comment_504954

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504972#Comment_504972

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

Squash anyone?

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504974#Comment_504974

I prefer lemon... [B]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504975#Comment_504975

I prefer lemon...

I was referencing the sport, not food. Look it up and you'll see the relevance to your comment

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport)

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504984#Comment_504984

I prefer lemon...

I was referencing the sport, not food. Look it up and you'll see the relevance to your comment

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport)

Dear George, please do not assume that others are ignorant. I played squash many years ago, when I was much fitter. It's a fast way to lose calories.

You jumped from off-the-wall to squash, I jumped from squash to lemon...

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504992#Comment_504992

I prefer lemon...

I was referencing the sport, not food. Look it up and you'll see the relevance to your comment

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport)

Dear George, please do not assume that others are ignorant. I played squash many years ago, when I was much fitter. It's a fast way to lose calories.

You jumped from off-the-wall to squash, I jumped from squash to lemon...

Is that a broad jump or a high jump?

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504954#Comment_504954

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

Peace, George! *smile* I truly wish you well!

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

When I read the following, how can I help but think of Young John? eh???

So the soldiers did these things, ²⁵^xbut standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and ^ythe disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ^z"Woman, behold, your son!" ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to ^ahis own home. John 19:26

or this Scripture?

²³^zOne of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table ^aat Jesus’ side,^{^[1]}

^z ch. 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20

^a [Luke 16:22 (Gk.)]

^{^[1]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Jn 13:22–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/504803#Comment_504803

If the text was genuinely vague (a lot of pronominal references in the minor prophets fell into this category), our practice was not to annotate it at all. We made a choice where we deemed there was significant consensus. While in an ideal world we might have annotated all the possibilities, that would have been a much larger project. So we made a practical choice to cover the vast majority of clear cases as best we could, in the interests of getting this data to Logos users.

I am not sure how this cannot be more vague. Even the possible answers in this thread are pure speculation. The "he" in this verse could talking about some other eyewitness who was also sharing his story. We simply do not know who "he" is in this text.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505047#Comment_505047

I am not sure how this cannot be more vague. Even the possible answers in this thread are pure speculation. The "he" in this verse could talking about some other eyewitness who was also sharing his story. We simply do not know who "he" is in this text.

So ... is it vague to you or not? [:^)]

Even if you don't think you have a good grasp on the answer, there are those who think they do. There are resources you can consult, both within and outside Logos. The key thing is that some flexibility could be built into the system, and that would perhaps be an improvement that all of us look forward to. [:)]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505039#Comment_505039

Hi Milford

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

While I agree the word George used wasn't helpful the issue I was trying to explore in the original post was that we don't actually know who this "beloved disciple" is (as Tom points out in his post). And, hence, to understand the process Logos go through in tagging.

I agree entirely that many readers of Scripture, and many commentators, have come to the conclusion that the beloved disciple was John, son of Zebedee, but there are those who think differently. See example below from the introduction to the WBC volume on the gospel.

Admittedly, there are numerous uncertainties here, but it would appear that the texts relating to the Beloved Disciple hold well together and present a consistent picture. If chap. 21 was written by another author than the Evangelist, he appears to have shared the tradition relating to the disciple without modification. On the basis of these texts it is possible to make some tentative statements concerning the Beloved Disciple and his relation to the author of the Fourth Gospel.
(a) The Beloved Disciple is presented as a historical figure among the early disciples of Jesus and in the continuing Church. We acknowledge that this has been disputed at times. Bultmann, for example, believed that the Evangelist intended us to see in the Beloved Disciple a purely ideal figure, but that he was “historicized” by the redactor of chap. 21 (483–84). H. Thyen, however, affirmed that recent Johannine research shows “a growing and by no means uncritical consensus that to the literary figure of the Beloved Disciple on the textual level must correspond, on the level of the real history of Johannine Christianity, a concrete person” (“Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,” TRu 42/3, 223). That the Beloved Disciple served a representative and symbolic function is entirely consistent with his being a real disciple of Jesus, as with other figures of the Gospel like Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman, Lazarus—or even the pool of Siloam!
(b) The Beloved Disciple is not a member of the Twelve, nor a well-known person in the early Church. It is difficult to supply a cogent reason for the Evangelist consistently and completely hiding his identity if he were a prominent leader like John the Apostle or Paul, or a well-known individual like John Mark or Lazarus. By contrast the anonymity is understandable if the designation were the common mode of referring to a leader within the Johannine churches not known elsewhere; there would be no need to name the beloved leader.
(c) The Beloved Disciple is not the author of the Gospel—neither of chaps. 1–20 nor of chap. 21. This we deduced from the first mention of his name in 13:23 and from the implications of 21:21–24, despite the first impression which 21:24 may make. The texts in which the disciple features present him as the witness on which the Gospel rests, not its author.
(d) The Beloved Disciple is presented as an eyewitness of certain crucial events in the Gospel, notably in connection with the end of the ministry of Jesus and the resurrection appearances. If 1:35–40 and 18:15–16 were included in the relevant texts, this would greatly strengthen the impression, gained from the other passages, that the disciple was a Judean and therefore able to narrate elements in the ministry of Jesus in the south of Palestine and in Jerusalem in particular. His participation in the movement of John the Baptist and his involvement in the Jerusalem priestly circles would shed light on various elements in the background of the Fourth Gospel, including its basic theological thrust.
(e) The authority of the Beloved Disciple extends beyond the events which he may have witnessed. The implication of 13:23 leads to a view of the disciple as an authoritative interpreter of Jesus, not simply of the course of events at the close of the ministry of Jesus. He is the prime source of the traditions about Jesus in the Johannine circle. J. Roloff illuminatingly compared the role of the Beloved Disciple with that of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Community; both figures are anonymous, and both had decisive influence in their respective communities as interpreters and exegetes (“Der Johanneische Lieblingsjünger,” 129–51). While, however, the role of the Teacher of Righteousness was to be an interpreter of the OT for his community, that of the Beloved Disciple was to be an interpreter of Jesus and his revelation (Jesus was the interpreter of the OT!). This was beautifully and succinctly expressed by Yu Ibuki: “The revelation of the one loved by the Father takes place through the one loved by the Son. Hence the gospel of John can be described as the gospel of the Beloved according to the Beloved” (Wahrheit 271, cited by H. Thyen, TRu 42/3:260–61).
(f) The relationship of the Beloved Disciple to Peter requires examination in the exegesis of the passages. Here it suffices to note that if the superiority of the Beloved Disciple’s insight is stressed, there is no suggestion of a polemic against Peter. If there is any thought in the background that Peter represents the official ministry within the churches and the Beloved Disciple the charismatic ministries of the Spirit, both ministries are admitted as complementary within the Church of the Lord. Primarily, however, the authority of the Beloved Disciple within the Johannine communities is in view, possibly with an eye on the deviations that were arising from the teaching he communicates through the Gospel.
(g) As the authority figure to which the Johannine communities looked, the Beloved Disciple appears to have had a group of teachers about him. The existence of a Johannine literature alongside the Gospel, including the three epistles and the Book of Revelation, points to a group of teachers having a common center of loyalty, with a diversity not too great to be contained within the unity. Cullmann postulates that this group consciousness goes back to very early days within the life of the Church (The Johannine Circle, 39–56). R. A. Culpepper has filled out the thesis of a Johannine school by giving a detailed comparison with comparable “schools” in the ancient world (The Johannine School,1975). It is important to recognize that this school, though distinctive within early Christianity, was broad enough to include apocalyptic Christianity as well as a nonapocalyptic presentation of the kerygma, and that these coexisted under the greater unity of faith in the incarnate Word, who through his redeeming acts has brought the life of the kingdom of God to man.
(h) The identity of the leader of this group remains the secret of the Evangelist. There has been no lack of suggestions as to who he may have been: after John the Apostle, Lazarus is a favorite nomination (cf. 11:5, 36); in addition, John Mark, Matthias, Paul, the Presbyter John, [a symbol for] Gentile Christianity or free charismatic Christianity have all been proposed. Most recently H. Thyen has argued in favor of the elder who wrote 2 and 3 John as the Beloved Disciple (L’Evangile de Jean, 296–98). In the end we have to admit that these are all guesses, some with less and some with more plausibility. As with the Beloved Disciple, so with the Evangelist: we do not know his name. But our ignorance of his identity entails no detriment to the value of his work. Those who, like the Alogi of the second century, have rejected the Fourth Gospel as a profound interpretation of Jesus have thereby passed judgment on themselves. The Church through the ages has recognized in the Evangelist a unique theologian taught by the Spirit of truth. Perhaps we should extend the range of that judgment and view the Evangelist as a master interpreter of the school of the Beloved Disciple, among whom the Spirit showed his activity in large measure. The Fourth Gospel is a monument to the presence of the Paraclete in the Church of the Word made flesh. The work of the Evangelist is an encouragement to every believer to look to that same Paraclete to guide into all the truth attested in the Gospel.

George R. Beasley-Murray, John (Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxxiii–lxxv.

Recognising the point made by Sean (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/72083/502246.aspx#502246) that in these sorts of cases Logos goes with the majority opinion I think they have probably done the right thing.

However, for these situation with people having very divergent views, the suggestion to provide the ability for users to add new values or annotate tagging suggested by MJ at http://community.logos.com/forums/t/72523.aspx has some real merit.

Graham

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505039#Comment_505039

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

"Gratuitous" simply means that there is no foundation for drawing that conclusion. It has no bearing on how devout those who hold that opinion may be. I can state with near certainty that the reason they come to that conclusion is because the tradition is that John the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel. I would agree that John probably wrote it (hence the tradition), but it was not the son of Zebedee rather John the Elder. According to the Syrian feast days John the son of Zebedee died at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem and therefore prior to 70 ad. <logosres:icc-rev;ref=VolumePage.V_1,_p_xlviii;off=2399>. Remember: "Dead men tell no tales (and write no gospels). Also, don't forget the passage Mk 10.35-45 // Mt 20.20-23 where Jesus asks whether James and John are able to endure the suffering he is to endure and states "You will indeed drink my cup …"

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505054#Comment_505054

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

"Gratuitous" simply means that there is no foundation for drawing that conclusion.

Your definition of "gratuitous" is correct. That's why your statement was so off-the-wall. I don't intend to enter into a substantive discussion here, but I want to point out that your statement is so narrow, even a balanced debate with plausible arguments on both sides would invalidate it.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505054#Comment_505054

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

"Gratuitous" simply means that there is no foundation for drawing that conclusion. It has no bearing on how devout those who hold that opinion may be. I can state with near certainty that the reason they come to that conclusion is because the tradition is that John the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel. I would agree that John probably wrote it (hence the tradition), but it was not the son of Zebedee rather John the Elder. According to the Syrian feast days John the son of Zebedee died at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem and therefore prior to 70 ad. <logosres:icc-rev;ref=VolumePage.V_1,_p_xlviii;off=2399>. Remember: "Dead men tell no tales (and write no gospels). Also, don't forget the passage Mk 10.35-45 // Mt 20.20-23 where Jesus asks whether James and John are able to endure the suffering he is to endure and states "You will indeed drink my cup …"

Peace, George! *smile* I do INDEED owe you an apology!

Like Fonzie I hate to admit I was wrong; however, I was wrong! *smile* ...and I'm sorry ...

It all "hinges" on my former understanding of "gratuitous," which to me was a "negative" word ....

It is possible in British English for it to be a "negative" word, but not necessarily! George, I wasn't arguing the basic content of what you were saying ... ... that "content" is worthy of much diligent study .... I was arguing as to what I perceived as your "attitude," and of course I was in error ... thus the right and proper thing for me to do, eh??? IS to apologise! Of course! ... and I do! *smile*

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505072#Comment_505072

No need to apologize. Everyone here knows that you only write in good will. I figured it had to be the connotation of the word rather than the denotation which is why I explained my usage of the term. Live long and prosper ! [:D]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505089#Comment_505089

No need to apologize

But even so I'll add mine for my comment[:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505063#Comment_505063

Your definition of "gratuitous" is correct. That's why your statement was so off-the-wall. I don't intend to enter into a substantive discussion here, but I want to point out that your statement is so narrow, even a balanced debate with plausible arguments on both sides would invalidate it.

Lee, you seem to be quite the contrarian. If I say "left", you will say "right." If I say "eee-ther", you will say "eye-ther." Let's call the whole thing off.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505050#Comment_505050

Hi Milford

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

While I agree the word George used wasn't helpful the issue I was trying to explore in the original post was that we don't actually know who this "beloved disciple" is (as Tom points out in his post). And, hence, to understand the process Logos go through in tagging.

I agree entirely that many readers of Scripture, and many commentators, have come to the conclusion that the beloved disciple was John, son of Zebedee, but there are those who think differently. See example below from the introduction to the WBC volume on the gospel.

Admittedly, ................................................. encouragement to every believer to look to that same Paraclete to guide into all the truth attested in the Gospel.

George R. Beasley-Murray, John (Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxxiii–lxxv.

Recognising the point made by Sean (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/72083/502246.aspx#502246) that in these sorts of cases Logos goes with the majority opinion I think they have probably done the right thing.

However, for these situation with people having very divergent views, the suggestion to provide the ability for users to add new values or annotate tagging suggested by MJ at http://community.logos.com/forums/t/72523.aspx has some real merit.

Graham

Blessings, Graham! *smile* You come across very clear; and I thank you very kindly for your very positive sharings .... and have come to agree with your conclusions ..........

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505092#Comment_505092

I appreciate your joking tone, sometimes. But I am not contrarian. Please keep assumptions (and that is what some of your pronouncements and value judgments really amount to) where they belong, in your head, or at your desk.

If you sense that I am being personal, sorry for coming across that way but that is not my intention. I was reacting to the blanket statement that you made. I have nothing against you.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505048#Comment_505048

So ... is it vague to you or not?

Even if you don't think you have a good grasp on the answer, there are those who think they do. There are resources you can consult, both within and outside Logos. The key thing is that some flexibility could be built into the system, and that would perhaps be an improvement that all of us look forward to.

It is extremely vague, and any resource that claims to know who 'he' is will prevent me from taking the author seriously.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505376#Comment_505376

Ultimately it's your opinion, your choice. You have come to a positive conclusion that there is no positive conclusion.

But if you exclude the possibility that others could have valid but different conclusions, then others also need not take you seriously.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505378#Comment_505378

Ultimately it's your opinion, your choice. You have come to a positive conclusion that there is no positive conclusion.

But if you exclude the possibility that others could have valid but different conclusions, then others also need not take you seriously.

Peace, Lee! *smile* I had to read your post 4 or 5 times ... and .... am still smiling .....

Great and valid point(!) .... comingled with some very subtle humour .... (I take it that your post was indeed posted in "good humour"!) and is MUCH appreciated ......... Peace! I think that sometimes there isn't enough good will left in the world and am so glad when I'm wrong! *smile*

Psalm 29:11

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505473#Comment_505473

Thank you for your encouragement.

I hope I do show good humour, at least some of the time. But naturally my main goal is to express views that are accurate and helpful. Why waste time doing otherwise?

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505474#Comment_505474

Accurate! AND Helpful!

Yes, indeed! *smile*

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505378#Comment_505378

But if you exclude the possibility that others could have valid but different conclusions, then others also need not take you seriously.

This presents a particular epistemological position which is shared by only part of the Logos community (or of the philosophical community). And for most it is truth not validity that they are interested in.

While I certainly don't have a stellar record of following my own advice, my basic approach to avoid sending threads into argument/nastiness mode is:

let George be George
let neutral quotes from Wikipedia or other web resource present your argument - this keeps it impersonal
simply answer questions - don't preach; don't condemn
when it is interpretation, not fact, label it with "I think" or "I believe" or "so-and-so says"
never tell the other person that they are wrong except when they have misinterpreted what you said.
if I constantly feel misunderstood, figure out why what I write is not what they read - usually its definitions and assumptions
for logic so atrocious that drives me nuts but there is no gentle way to state my distress, bring out the fallacy hound.

Just, please, don't tell me it's simply a matter of opinion Why that brief side-trip in philosophy became so engrained in popular opinion baffles me.

Edit: having been mentioned, fallacy hound wants to make a personal appearance to prove he's still on the case:

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505558#Comment_505558

While I certainly don't have a stellar record of following my own advice, my basic approach to avoid sending threads into argument/nastiness mode is:

let George be George

Thanks a pantload, MJ. [:P]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505580#Comment_505580

Thanks a pantload, MJ.

Oops, I meant let Matthew be Matthew. Or was it Tom be Tom? or Rosie? Or Mark? Or Dave? Or James? Or Phillip? Or Denise? or ....

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505597#Comment_505597

@M.J.:

Are you actually referring to user Tom, or George?

If I understand correctly, here's what Tom is basically saying: "I have reviewed the evidence, and I can't form a conclusion from this". Which is fine! But then, he goes on to say, anyone who says that they have formed a conclusion engages in "pure speculation" and "it prevents me from taking him seriously".

And here's what George is saying: "I have reviewed the evidence, and no-one can validly say that so-and-so is the author. If they do, it is probably because they think this-and-that. Instead, I am persuaded that the author is really such-and-such."

Does either position strike you as epistemological openness? Ironically, both positions are mutually exclusive.

On to your fallacy hound:

1. Let George be George. Alright, since he's been around here a lot longer than I have, and since he really does have substance, I'll let him be him. Especially if he would just extend me the same courtesy and respect.

2. When it is interpretation, not fact, label it with "I think" or "I believe" or "so-and-so says". Now I have a problem. Because that is not what other users seem content to do.

3. This presents a particular epistemological position which is shared by only part of the Logos community (or of the philosophical community). And for most it is truth not validity that they are interested in. I do not see a huge contrast between truth and validity.In fact, I do not see your point at all. But if anyone, in stating his views, represents others' views as "totally gratuitous", or "pure speculation", or "any conclusion prevents me from taking him seriously", he has extended into making rather restrictive comments about others' views in a public forum. It is at this juncture that meme starts to encroach on meme, and silence is not necessarily golden, no? Could that also be the very motivation for your (M.J.) entering this particular discussion, because you see some idea or ideal being encroached upon?

P.S. Better feed your "Fallacy Hound". Looks like he hasn't had anything to eat for months!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505612#Comment_505612

Let George be George. Alright, since he's been around here a lot longer than I have, and since he really does have substance, I'll let him be him. Especially if he would just extend me the same courtesy and respect.

Of course you are allowed to be yourself—at least when you agree with me. [;)] [:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505612#Comment_505612

Could that also be the very motivation for your (M.J.) entering this particular discussion, because you see some idea or ideal being encroached upon?

Definitely/ I value civility on the forums. If not encroached upon, multiple participants were very close to the line. I saw the thread as a in serious danger of devolving.

I do not see a huge contrast between truth and validity

from an Earlham College website:"An argument is sound if (and only if) all its premises are true and its reasoning is valid; all others are unsound. It follows that all sound arguments have true conclusions." Truth speaks to reality/actuality/factuality; validity refers to form and process.

Looks like he hasn't had anything to eat for months!

I know. The tone of the forums keeps improving so he doesn't get out much ... he's just shut in a book and forgotten.

-----

a more formal definition of truth vs. validity from Keith Burgess-Jackson:

'Validity is a structural or formal feature of argument. It has nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity (i.e., the content or substance) of the argument’s premises or conclusion. A valid argument, by definition, is one in which the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises. Put differently, a valid argument has the following characteristic: If its premises are true, then its conclusion is true. The only combination of truth values that you will never find—because it is logically impossible—is T, T (for as many premises as there are), and F (for the conclusion). Every other combination is possible"

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/505627#Comment_505627

Definitely/ I value civility on the forums. If not encroached upon, multiple participants were very close to the line. I saw the thread as a in serious danger of devolving.

From my perspective, I would not have entered into any substantive debate. This forum prohibits it. But I can't lie and tell you that I'm happy to see a commonly held opinion painted into a corner by sweeping statements either.

from an Earlham College website: "An argument is sound if (and only if) all its premises are true and its reasoning is valid; all others are unsound. It follows that all sound arguments have true conclusions." Truth speaks to reality/actuality/factuality; validity refers to form and process.

I still do not see a huge contrast. Must we break up twin brothers and make them wear different hats? What's the point you were trying to raise, though? That most people in this forum care not so much for validity, as for truth?