Excellent work ! An unbyased and clear view. Wish there weere more works like that to make true comparisons. Congrats and greetings from Brazil.

@prof_elder

8 ай бұрын

Glad you liked it!

Please see the article ‘John and John Mark’ (1960) by Pierson Parker in JBL, volume 79. It is very possible that the ‘we’ who issued and endorsed the gospel of ‘John’ (in Ch 21) want the readers/audience to believe that it consists of the recollections and writings of John Mark. To me this is the most likely ‘presumed author’, the author the first audiences (likely to be in cities of the Province of Asia, such as Ephesus) would assume to be the author or source of the accounts. The preacher whom we today call John Mark is written up in the late 1st century/early 2nd ‘Acts’ and the details imply he was was likely rich and lived in Jerusalem in a large house, with gatehouse and servants at the time of Jesus’ preaching. Based on Acts his house was a probable site (and indeed also the later ‘traditional’ site) for the last supper, in the rich area of the Western Hill, and yet close to the Essene Quarter. If this supper occurred in his house, described as the house of his mother ( a Mary) he would be present as the male host, and lying beside the main guest, Jesus. Note that John Mark is simply called “John” twice in Acts 13:5 and 13:13 suggesting that even in the early second century this figure was known by either Mark or John. John Mark appears from Acts and Philemon and 1st Peter to have been well-known and thought to be ‘active’ in the Province of Asia (the likely place for ‘JOHN’s’ creation) . MARK is mentioned in three letters supposed to be by ‘Paul’ and and one forged to be by Peter (1Peter’).See the article by Pierson Parker (1960) ‘John and John Mark’ that vigorously defends this identification. This prominence in the churches of the Anatolian provinces would enable John Mark to be Papias’ ‘John the Elder’. From what Papias says, a highly esteemed personal disciple of Jesus who is not an apostle and yet who supposedly knew what the apostles such as Andrew and Philip had said. This John the Elder was still alive in Papias’ youth and yet was talking about what he had heard apostles like Philip and Andrew ‘had said’, when (all?) the apostles had themselves had apparently died.

In the "list about the Beloved Disciple" (at 5:53), the second item is John 18:15-18, but there we only find references to "another"/"that"/"the other" disciple. The love is (conspicuously?) missing so why is this disciple nevertheless identified as the beloved disciple?

@prof_elder

8 ай бұрын

Great question! Not all scholars presume that it is the Beloved Disciple here, but I do because it fits the pattern of the Beloved Disciple and Peter being pitted against one another. Though I don't have a great answer as to why the author opts to use the adjective "other" rather than "beloved" here.

I am a bit surprised that this fellow isn't familiar with the theory that the Gospel of John was written by John the Presbyter (a.k.a. John the Elder). It's a theory most recently proposed by Richard Bauckham (but first alluded to by Eusebius), professor of New Testament Studies at St Andrews University in Scotland, in his groundbreaking book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses." The main evidence he gives is that we know that John the Elder was formally a Jewish priest (Ignatius and Polycrates says he wore the priestly plate on his forehead), was from a family of some status and lived in Jerusalem, so he would have been known by Caiaphas's family and been allowed to come into their home. John the Elder's family probably owned the home that Jesus and his disciples had the Last Supper, and as the owner of the home (or representative of the family that owned it) he would have had the right to dine next to Jesus as per Jewish custom. There is a lot of patristic evidence that John the Elder was different from John the Apostle (even Pope Benedict accepted this). He is mentioned as being separate by Papias and still being alive when John the Apostle died. Papias also states that John the Elder was a disciple of the Lord and was a direct eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. Also, like the Apostle, John the Elder resided, taught and died at Ephesus, having a tomb that's different from the Apostle's.

@craigfairweather3401

3 ай бұрын

Yes. I have commented “Please see the article ‘John and John Mark’ (1960) by Pierson Parker in JBL, volume 79. It is very possible that the ‘we’ who issued and endorsed the gospel of ‘John’ (in Ch 21) want the readers/audience to believe that it consists of the recollections and writings of John Mark. To me this is the most likely ‘presumed author’, the author the first audiences (likely to be in cities of the Province of Asia, such as Ephesus) would assume to be the author or source of the accounts. The preacher whom we today call John Mark is written up in the late 1st century/early 2nd ‘Acts’ and the details imply he was was likely rich and lived in Jerusalem in a large house, with gatehouse and servants at the time of Jesus’ preaching. Based on Acts his house was a probable site (and indeed also the later ‘traditional’ site) for the last supper, in the rich area of the Western Hill, and yet close to the Essene Quarter. If this supper occurred in his house, described as the house of his mother ( a Mary) he would be present as the male host, and lying beside the main guest, Jesus. Note that John Mark is simply called “John” twice in Acts 13:5 and 13:13 suggesting that even in the early second century this figure was known by either Mark or John. John Mark appears from Acts and Philemon and 1st Peter to have been well-known and thought to be ‘active’ in the Province of Asia (the likely place for ‘JOHN’s’ creation) . MARK is mentioned in three letters supposed to be by ‘Paul’ and and one forged to be by Peter (1Peter’).See the article by Pierson Parker (1960) ‘John and John Mark’ that vigorously defends this identification. This prominence in the churches of the Anatolian provinces would enable John Mark to be Papias’ ‘John the Elder’. From what Papias says, a highly esteemed personal disciple of Jesus who is not an apostle and yet who supposedly knew what the apostles such as Andrew and Philip had said. This John the Elder was still alive in Papias’ youth and yet was talking about what he had heard apostles like Philip and Andrew ‘had said’, when (all?) the apostles had themselves had apparently died.”

@edwardkim8972

3 ай бұрын

@@craigfairweather3401 I do not believe that the author of Revelations, the Gospel of John and the three letters attributed to John are the same person and I believe John Mark is the author of the Gospel of Mark. I believe John the Elder wrote Revelations and I believe the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, with a lot of editorial help from the Christian community of Ephesus. The letters of John were written by John the Elder, again with a lot of editorial help from the Christian community of Ephesus, hence the very close writing style between the letters and the Gospel of John. John the Elder was not John Mark. I follow a modified version of Richard Bauckham's belief that John the Elder was the John the Elder that Polycrates of Ephesus says "rested on Jesus' bosom" at the Last Supper and "... wore the sacerdotal plate (petalon) of the high priest."

@edwardkim8972

3 ай бұрын

@@craigfairweather3401 and there is very little proof that 1 Peter was a forgery as all the early Churches deemed it genuine per Eusebius. The good Greek of 1 Peter is probably because Peter used a scribe, in 1 Peter's case the scribe is identified specifically as Silas within the text of the letter itself. You might be confused with 2 Peter, which is the likely forgery given it's extensive use of passages and verbiage from the shorter epistle of Jude?