Hmm. It seems that the main piece of evidence Witherington is adducing is that Lazarus is called “the one whom you love”. He acknowledges, however, that in the first instance the phrase is “hon phileis”, while in the other instances, the beloved disciple is “hon agapa”. At this point, my sketchy Greek is of no use, but perhaps you’d know to answer this one–would the difference be significant to a first-century Greek speaker?

By Phil Walker on 01.30.07 3:30 pm

I would not place that much significance on the distinction between the two words. I think that they are more or less synonymous. I know that this flies straight in the face of many popular interpretations of John 21:15-17, but I believe that there are far too many reasons against a sharp distinction to place that much weight on the word difference. Here are a few:

1. The distinction between the two terms is a Greek one and does not exist in Aramaic or Hebrew. The LXX uses both verbs to translate a single Hebrew word.

2. As Raymond Brown observes, Peter answers ‘yes’ to Jesus’ first two questions (with agapan) in John 21, even though he uses philein in his response. He does not seem to make a great distinction. He is grieved, not because Jesus used the ‘lesser term’ in the third question, but due to the painful significance of being asked the question three times.

3. Both of the two verbs are applied to both Lazarus and the beloved disciple (11:3, 5; 13:23; 20:2).

4. The strongest argument, it seems to me, is the way that the two verbs are used more or less interchangably in John’s gospel. Compare the following verses for an example of what I am talking about — 3:35 and 5:20; 14:23 and 16:27; 11:3 and 11:5; 13:23 and 20:2.

More could be said (as ever), but I think that the above is sufficient to make the basic case that the two terms are more or less synonymous and do not really provide evidence against Witherington’s claims.

By Al on 01.30.07 3:54 pm

I assume that Witherington is not arguing that Lazarus is the author (as people usually argue that the author is John and John is the beloved disciple)?

And what would this mean for the Last Supper event, where Jesus talks to the beloved? Was Lazarus one of the 12?

Who is the author?

By Andrew Fulford on 01.30.07 3:57 pm

Andrew,

Witherington addresses all of your questions in his post.

By Al on 01.30.07 4:08 pm

I was going to post this as a comment on Witherington’s blog, but I see I have to belong to Blogger to do so. So I’ll post it here:

A few questions that I haven’t seen addressed yet (or perhaps I missed them, and if I did I apologize):

(1) On Witherington’s theory, John didn’t write the Gospel (though he edited it); the Beloved Disciple did.

But if that’s true, that means that all the stylistic features which this Gospel shares with John’s epistles and with Revelation must be due to John’s editing of this manuscript. That is, they aren’t part of the original manuscript by the BD. Doesn’t that seem like a huge stretch?

And if Warren Gage at Knox Theological Seminary is correct when he argues (in the John-Revelation project, which is online) that John and Revelation are a huge chiasm, then it seems even less likely that John simply edited the Gospel. It seems more likely that he wrote it and wrote Revelation as a chiastic “mirror” of it.

At least, it seems to me that it would be easier to write two documents yourself and make them chiastic than to try to edit someone else’s manuscript to make it fit chiastically with one you have written or are planning to write.

(2) Witherington says that John 13 doesn’t have to be the Last Supper in the Upper Room in Jerusalem.

But the events in John 13:1ff. lead to Jesus handing the bread to Judas (which, of course, is when we hear about the beloved disciple). Judas then leaves and Jesus immediately starts a speech (v. 31: “When he had gone out” tells us that this speech didn’t happen some days later; it’s part of the same scene).

That speech continues with no indication of a change in time or place, straight through to 18:1, when Jesus goes out to the garden. “When Jesus had spoken these words” appears to refer to the whole speech/dialogue from 13:31 on, and indicates that what’s happening now in chapter 18 follows immediately on the heels of that speech.

So what’s the argument for saying that John 13:1ff. doesn’t have to be the Last Supper? It certainly appears to me to be.

(3) Witherington mentions “leprosy” and claims that Hanson’s disease did exist in Judea at the time of Jesus. I’d be interested in hearing how we know that.

But at the same time, even if it did exist, wouldn’t it be best to take the “leprosy” talked about in the New Testament as being the same as the “leprosy” talked about in the Old Testament?

After all, the stories about the cleansing of a leper are stories steeped in that Old Covenant background where lepers are excluded from the synagogue, etc.

But that leprosy which we read about in Leviticus ISN’T Hanson’s disease. It’s something that houses and clothes can get, for one thing. For another, if a person was white from head to toe with “leprosy” in Leviticus, he’s clean and allowed back into the presence of God. He isn’t a health risk. That wouldn’t be true of Hanson’s disease, would it?

Just some thoughts.

By John on 01.30.07 7:57 pm

“But if that’s true, that means that all the stylistic features which this Gospel shares with John’s epistles and with Revelation must be due to John’s editing of this manuscript. That is, they aren’t part of the original manuscript by the BD. Doesn’t that seem like a huge stretch?”

W.r.t the epistles, I hear you, because it always seemed like the effusive style John speaks in in his letters matches the effusive style John records Jesus using duirng the last supper.

I would have defended certain “stylistic similarities” (a propensity for heptamerousness?) between John and Revelation to try to make the case that they shared the same author, but I also will admit that John and Rev are two VERY different kinds of books, and any similarities are possibly entirly accidental or coincidental. My understanding is that alot of scholars don’t think John and Rev are by the same person, and that I’d probably explain that, if I was trying to defend Johanine authorship of both by the idea that I wouldn’t expect John’s gospel to share much stylisticly with John’s visionary work.

Anyway, really interesting stuff.

By pduggie on 01.30.07 8:25 pm

Paul –

Wasn’t Vern Poythress’s doctoral dissertation on the very similar grammatical constructions between John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation? I seem to recall that.

There are also parallels of theme between the Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation. I’m thinking in particular of John’s frequent use of darkness and light imagery. One might say, “Well, that’s just common coin. Anyone could do that.” True. But no one else does it quite the way it shows up in … well, in the writings attributed to John.

I’d argue, too, that there is a LOT of similarity between John’s Gospel and Revelation besides the possible chiastic relationship between the two. There’s Jesus as the Lamb. There’s the emphasis on seven. There’s the emphasis on the Old Covenant liturgy: John’s Gospel has been shown to be a walk through the tabernacle, and we get something like that again in Revelation. And more.

In short, I think a pretty convincing case can be made that John wrote both the Gospel and Revelation.

Witherington might say that such relationship between the Gospel and Revelation could be explained equally well if John were the EDITOR of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple.

Possibly. But this might be a good place to apply Occam’s Razor. Why posit another author besides John and make John only the editor (responsible for all the stuff that makes it sound as if he were the author) when it’s easier to posit that John himself is the author?

By John on 01.30.07 9:18 pm

Even if the “beloved disciple” is John and thus distinct from Lazarus, is there some reason in the theology of John’s Gospel for why they might be described in similar terms?

By garver on 01.31.07 3:34 pm

Thanks, Al. I noticed BW3 said the same thing (without the useful details) in response to a comment at his place, but a second opinion is always good.

By Phil Walker on 01.31.07 10:09 pm

This is an idea that comes and goes. When I was studying, a guy named Vernon Eller published a medium-weight book arguing this. It was probably about 25 years ago.

By Conrad Gempf on 02.01.07 8:43 pm

Hmm. It seems that the main piece of evidence Witherington is adducing is that Lazarus is called “the one whom you love”. He acknowledges, however, that in the first instance the phrase is “hon phileis”, while in the other instances, the beloved disciple is “hon agapa”. At this point, my sketchy Greek is of no use, but perhaps you’d know to answer this one–would the difference be significant to a first-century Greek speaker?

By Phil Walker on 01.30.07 3:30 pm

I would not place that much significance on the distinction between the two words. I think that they are more or less synonymous. I know that this flies straight in the face of many popular interpretations of John 21:15-17, but I believe that there are far too many reasons against a sharp distinction to place that much weight on the word difference. Here are a few:

1. The distinction between the two terms is a Greek one and does not exist in Aramaic or Hebrew. The LXX uses both verbs to translate a single Hebrew word.

2. As Raymond Brown observes, Peter answers ‘yes’ to Jesus’ first two questions (with agapan) in John 21, even though he uses philein in his response. He does not seem to make a great distinction. He is grieved, not because Jesus used the ‘lesser term’ in the third question, but due to the painful significance of being asked the question three times.

3. Both of the two verbs are applied to both Lazarus and the beloved disciple (11:3, 5; 13:23; 20:2).

4. The strongest argument, it seems to me, is the way that the two verbs are used more or less interchangably in John’s gospel. Compare the following verses for an example of what I am talking about — 3:35 and 5:20; 14:23 and 16:27; 11:3 and 11:5; 13:23 and 20:2.

More could be said (as ever), but I think that the above is sufficient to make the basic case that the two terms are more or less synonymous and do not really provide evidence against Witherington’s claims.

By Al on 01.30.07 3:54 pm

I assume that Witherington is not arguing that Lazarus is the author (as people usually argue that the author is John and John is the beloved disciple)?

And what would this mean for the Last Supper event, where Jesus talks to the beloved? Was Lazarus one of the 12?

Who is the author?

By Andrew Fulford on 01.30.07 3:57 pm

Andrew,

Witherington addresses all of your questions in his post.

By Al on 01.30.07 4:08 pm

I was going to post this as a comment on Witherington’s blog, but I see I have to belong to Blogger to do so. So I’ll post it here:

A few questions that I haven’t seen addressed yet (or perhaps I missed them, and if I did I apologize):

(1) On Witherington’s theory, John didn’t write the Gospel (though he edited it); the Beloved Disciple did.

But if that’s true, that means that all the stylistic features which this Gospel shares with John’s epistles and with Revelation must be due to John’s editing of this manuscript. That is, they aren’t part of the original manuscript by the BD. Doesn’t that seem like a huge stretch?

And if Warren Gage at Knox Theological Seminary is correct when he argues (in the John-Revelation project, which is online) that John and Revelation are a huge chiasm, then it seems even less likely that John simply edited the Gospel. It seems more likely that he wrote it and wrote Revelation as a chiastic “mirror” of it.

At least, it seems to me that it would be easier to write two documents yourself and make them chiastic than to try to edit someone else’s manuscript to make it fit chiastically with one you have written or are planning to write.

(2) Witherington says that John 13 doesn’t have to be the Last Supper in the Upper Room in Jerusalem.

But the events in John 13:1ff. lead to Jesus handing the bread to Judas (which, of course, is when we hear about the beloved disciple). Judas then leaves and Jesus immediately starts a speech (v. 31: “When he had gone out” tells us that this speech didn’t happen some days later; it’s part of the same scene).

That speech continues with no indication of a change in time or place, straight through to 18:1, when Jesus goes out to the garden. “When Jesus had spoken these words” appears to refer to the whole speech/dialogue from 13:31 on, and indicates that what’s happening now in chapter 18 follows immediately on the heels of that speech.

So what’s the argument for saying that John 13:1ff. doesn’t have to be the Last Supper? It certainly appears to me to be.

(3) Witherington mentions “leprosy” and claims that Hanson’s disease did exist in Judea at the time of Jesus. I’d be interested in hearing how we know that.

But at the same time, even if it did exist, wouldn’t it be best to take the “leprosy” talked about in the New Testament as being the same as the “leprosy” talked about in the Old Testament?

After all, the stories about the cleansing of a leper are stories steeped in that Old Covenant background where lepers are excluded from the synagogue, etc.

But that leprosy which we read about in Leviticus ISN’T Hanson’s disease. It’s something that houses and clothes can get, for one thing. For another, if a person was white from head to toe with “leprosy” in Leviticus, he’s clean and allowed back into the presence of God. He isn’t a health risk. That wouldn’t be true of Hanson’s disease, would it?

Just some thoughts.

By John on 01.30.07 7:57 pm

“But if that’s true, that means that all the stylistic features which this Gospel shares with John’s epistles and with Revelation must be due to John’s editing of this manuscript. That is, they aren’t part of the original manuscript by the BD. Doesn’t that seem like a huge stretch?”

W.r.t the epistles, I hear you, because it always seemed like the effusive style John speaks in in his letters matches the effusive style John records Jesus using duirng the last supper.

I would have defended certain “stylistic similarities” (a propensity for heptamerousness?) between John and Revelation to try to make the case that they shared the same author, but I also will admit that John and Rev are two VERY different kinds of books, and any similarities are possibly entirly accidental or coincidental. My understanding is that alot of scholars don’t think John and Rev are by the same person, and that I’d probably explain that, if I was trying to defend Johanine authorship of both by the idea that I wouldn’t expect John’s gospel to share much stylisticly with John’s visionary work.

Anyway, really interesting stuff.

By pduggie on 01.30.07 8:25 pm

Paul –

Wasn’t Vern Poythress’s doctoral dissertation on the very similar grammatical constructions between John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation? I seem to recall that.

There are also parallels of theme between the Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation. I’m thinking in particular of John’s frequent use of darkness and light imagery. One might say, “Well, that’s just common coin. Anyone could do that.” True. But no one else does it quite the way it shows up in … well, in the writings attributed to John.

I’d argue, too, that there is a LOT of similarity between John’s Gospel and Revelation besides the possible chiastic relationship between the two. There’s Jesus as the Lamb. There’s the emphasis on seven. There’s the emphasis on the Old Covenant liturgy: John’s Gospel has been shown to be a walk through the tabernacle, and we get something like that again in Revelation. And more.

In short, I think a pretty convincing case can be made that John wrote both the Gospel and Revelation.

Witherington might say that such relationship between the Gospel and Revelation could be explained equally well if John were the EDITOR of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple.

Possibly. But this might be a good place to apply Occam’s Razor. Why posit another author besides John and make John only the editor (responsible for all the stuff that makes it sound as if he were the author) when it’s easier to posit that John himself is the author?

By John on 01.30.07 9:18 pm

Even if the “beloved disciple” is John and thus distinct from Lazarus, is there some reason in the theology of John’s Gospel for why they might be described in similar terms?

By garver on 01.31.07 3:34 pm

Thanks, Al. I noticed BW3 said the same thing (without the useful details) in response to a comment at his place, but a second opinion is always good.

By Phil Walker on 01.31.07 10:09 pm

This is an idea that comes and goes. When I was studying, a guy named Vernon Eller published a medium-weight book arguing this. It was probably about 25 years ago.

By Conrad Gempf on 02.01.07 8:43 pm