Tell me About John

[nPeace]

@oldbadger the floor is yours.
Tell me about John. Who was he? What do you know about him? I would like to hear everything you know about the so called John the Apostle.

 

[oldbadger]

@oldbadger the floor is yours.
Tell me about John. Who was he? What do you know about him? I would like to hear everything you know about the so called John the Apostle.

Two way street, I think?
I remember asking you if you might know what John wrote about that last week when they went to
Jerusalem. For instance, what did Jesus do on the first day after their arrival?
Do you remember my question?

My first point about John is that he was alive in the early first century AD.

Now it's your turn, + that answer I requested.

 

[Vouthon]

I'm not @oldbager but if I may contribute one post to the topic:

The one thing I'm most certain about is that 'John the Apostle' - who in the synoptic gospels is a member of the Twelve Apostles grouping, one of the two sons of Zebedee Jesus honours with the sobriquet Boanerges ("Sons of Thunder"), and along with Peter and his brother James witnessed the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor - did not write the 'Gospel of John' that later ecclesiastical tradition from the late second century, beginning with St. Irenaeus of Lyons (circa. 180 CE), attributes to him.

There is nothing in the text of the Fourth Gospel itself which would lead one to conclude that this 'John' Zebedee was the Beloved Disciple whose original witness the gospel is based upon - indeed, the most glaring anomaly being that none - and I do stress none - of the very particular group of ‘Zebedee brothers’ stories we find in the synoptic tradition are included in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. the calling of the Zebedees by Jesus, their presence with Jesus when they witnessed the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration scene, and also of the special request for special seats in Jesus’ kingdom when it comes etc).

If this were 'John’s Gospel;, I would expect to see clear imprints of his own personal experiences of Jesus. However there are really none. Instead the Synoptic tradition seems to show forth more experience taken directly from the thought of John the apostle, than does the Fourth Gospel.

This is especially important, when it is considered that this Gospel places great stress on the crucial role of eyewitness testimony (see especially Jn. 19-21). Is it not really strange that these stories would be omitted if this Gospel was by John of Zebedee, or even if he was its primary source? It is equally strange that the Zebedees are so briefly mentioned in this Gospel as such (see Jn. 21.2) and John is never equated with the Beloved Disciple even in the appendix in John 21 (cf. vs. 2 and 7-- the Beloved Disciple could certainly be one of the two unnamed disciples mentioned in vs. 2).

In Acts 4:13 we read that when Annas, Caiaphas and the Pharisees “saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They marveled, and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus”.

The fact that later church tradition attributed the sophisticated, Qumran-reminiscent theology of the Fourth Gospel to an "unlearned and ignorant" man suggests that they really must have believed in miracles.

 

[nPeace]

Two way street, I think?
I remember asking you if you might know what John wrote about that last week when they went to
Jerusalem. For instance, what did Jesus do on the first day after their arrival?
Do you remember my question?

My first point about John is that he was alive in the early first century AD.

Now it's your turn, + that answer I requested.

I'm not just saying your argument is a strawman. I will demonstrate how it is.
Your argument take a form like this... If the Gospel writers really knew Jesus, they would all describe his form - whether he was tall, short, or handsome, and how he dressed - just as they described John the Baptist's attire, and David's appearance was described, as well as his son's, and other persons like Sarah.
So there. that proves that they did not know Jesus.
Go ahead. Show me where they described thier leader and teacher.

Strawman argument, that is.
John described the events prior to Jesus' last trip to Jerusalem, and events that took place when he got there. See John 11, onward.

According to John 21:24-25, it reads...
24 This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
25 There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.

This disciple - "the one Jesus loved", did not write down everything... only what he was inspired by God to write,
No one is authorized to decide what he should have written.
According to the scriptures, Jesus used that disciple.

So we have many evidences. The writer was a disciple of Jesus. He was specifically, the one Jesus loved. He is referred to as John. He wrote many details about Christ's life, and early writers such as Irenaeus (140-203), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155-222) and Origen (185-253) all designated the writer as the apostle John. No one else was suggested by the early church. All say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees.

The style of the Gospel of John, and the letters of John, are similar. The writer confirms that he is an early follower of Christ and eyewitness - 1 John 1:1-4

Over to you.
Oh, the strawnaqm burned. Please don't build another.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not @oldbager but if I may contribute one post to the topic:

Wow! Something to talk about.......... thank you for such a detailed post.

The one thing I'm most certain about is that 'John the Apostle' - who in the synoptic gospels is a member of the Twelve Apostles grouping, one of the two sons of Zebedee Jesus honours with the sobriquet Boanerges ("Sons of Thunder"), and along with Peter and his brother James witnessed the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor - did not write the 'Gospel of John' that later ecclesiastical tradition from the late second century, beginning with St. Irenaeus of Lyons (circa. 180 CE), attributes to him.

Yep. I think so as well. Most authors that have read think the G-John was written circa 100-110AD, which would have given the Disciple John an extremely long life for a Galilean Boatman of those times.
But I notice that Apostle John, who had a very valuable bundle of documents to build his gospel from didn't actually know when the incidents occurred in an accurate time line.
About the nickname Boanerges. An Alaskan RF member( whose name I can't just grasp) once explained to me that she believed that Baroanerges could have meant 'Sons of Violence' and this fits with my ideas well for several reasons too long and off target for this thread.
I have many 'write-ups' focusing upon 'Boanerges' or 'Baroanerges' and I copy just one here in case it might interest you. I will have to reply to the rest of your post later:-

Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary
רגש
The root-verb רגש (ragash) means thunder but only figuratively, and probably also because our modern languages lack proper synonyms. This verb is used only three times in the Bible: Why are the nations in an uproar...?" - Psalm 2:1; "The nations made an uproar..." - Psalm 46:6; "Alas, the uproar of many peoples" - Isaiah 17:12.
Our verb yields two derivatives:
The masculine noun רגש (regesh), which is used only in Psalm 55:14, "We who had sweet fellowship together walked in the house of the Lord in the throng."
The feminine noun רגשה (rigsha) occurs only in Psalm 64:2, "Hide me from the secret counsel of evildoers."
HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament has the following to say about this root (verb + nouns): "Ragash and its derivatives have been translated by such ideas as "tumult" or "noisy throngs". However, contextual parallels (to plot - Psalm 2:1; secret plots - Psalm 64:2; sweet converse - Psalm 55:14) indicate that ideas such as "conspire" are probably correct.
Associated Biblical names
♂Boanergesֲןבםוסדוע
Ergo: to tie a meaning of Sons Of Thunder to the name Boanerges requires a phonetic warping of the Semitic word for sons and a misappropriation of a very negative verb meaning to congregate for dubious (= destructive or conspiratorial) reasons.

Now what?

Did Mark goof?
Some scholars propose that author Mark worked off Aramaic texts, and that he misread the letter ם (mem final, corresponding to our M) for a ס (samekh corresponding to our S), and blundered on by wrongly transliterating the Aramaic benay ra'am (meaning Sons Of Thunder) to the incorrect Greek Boanerges, which he then swiftly explained to mean Sons Of Thunder.

Admitted, it's a common lament among beginning students of Hebrew or Aramaic that the letters ם (M-final) and ס (S) look confusingly alike, as do the letters מ (M-regular) and ט (T) as do the letters ד (D) and ר (R) as do the letters ו (W) and ז (Z) as do the letters ה (H) and ח (CH) as do the letters ע (') and צ (TZ).

But usually, after a lesson or two, the apt neophytes learn to recognize these letters and their obvious differences, and very few mistakes ensue. On the same note, foreign students of the Latin alphabet usually complain about the similarities of our letters O and Q, or O and D, or O and 0, or I (upper case i) and l (lower case L), but that also doesn't last long.

For Mark to produce an effective gospel as he did, he must have been at least very interested in the subjects and sources, and doubtlessly quite the scholar. And Mark certainly didn't write in a cultural vacuum; he must have had a circle of immediate proofreaders that would have caught a goof like that within seconds, and they'd all would have had a big laugh out of the whole affair. Holding that Mark mistook a final mem for a samekh is like saying that Mark Zuckerberg doesn't know the difference between JavaScript and Java script, and that he managed to slip a booboo into the live Facebook code because of it.

Possible, but highly unlikely on both accounts.

Now what?

Name or names? Translation or paraphrase?
Well, to start with, most translations will tell the reader that Jesus gave our boys the name Boanerges, which means Sons Of Thunder. And yes, the version of Mark published by Westcott and Hort (1881) indeed uses the word ןםןלב, the acquisitive singular noun meaning name. But the Textus Receptus (1551 and 1894), Tischendorf (1869-1872) and the Byzantine Majority Text (2000) use the plural ןםןלבפב; names.

Moreover, the Greek phrasing that ties the two monikers together is ן וףפים (o estin), which translates to our English "that is to say" (says Spiros Zodhiates in his Complete Wordstudy Dictionary). This phrase occurs often to reflect a far-less-than-perfect symmetry: Mark 7:11 reads "Corban, that is a gift devoted to God," yet the word corban does not translate into "a gift devoted to God" (see our article on the word Corban). Mark 12:42 reads, "two lepta which is a quadrans," but two lepta does not translate into a quadrans. And so on (Mark 15:16, 15:42, Ephesians 6:17, Colossians 1:24, Hebrews 7:2, Revelation 21:8, 21:17).

In other words: it's by no means certain that Boanerges and Sons Of Thunder are one and the same name in different languages. It's much more likely that they are two distinct names but each other's paraphrases.

From which language is Boanerges?
The name Boanerges, most probably and almost certainly, does not come from a Semitic equivalent meaning Sons Of Thunder. And that is most convenient if not quite expected, because Mark wrote for a predominantly Latin audience who were also fluent in Greek. A play on words in Semitic, that is too hard even for us modern scholars to crack, would most probably have flown by them. The origin and meaning of the name Boanerges has to be identified in either Greek or Latin and preferably both.

And that means the hunt is on for alternative interpretations. Here is our guess:

A much more likely etymology of Boanerges
The first part of גןבםוסדוע (Boanerges) looks like it has to do either with the verb גןב (boa), meaning to shout or cry; or the related verbs גןבש (boao) or גןח (boe), both meaning to shout or cry. Lewis and Short (A Latin Dictionary) report that these Greek verbs are reflected in the Latin root bo-, meaning roaring, which also leads to the Latin noun bos, meaning an ox or bull (hence our word bovine). And sure enough, the Greek word for ox or bull is גןץע (bous). Ergo, to a Greek and Latin audience, the name Boanerges would look like it starts with the verb to low (the sound a cow makes).

The second part of the name Boanerges looks like it has to do with the word ֵםוסדויב (energeia), meaning activity or operation (hence our word energy). And sure enough, this word in Latin is energia. Obviously, the name Boanerges is a compound, and sure enough, the word ֵםוסדויב comes in all kinds of compounds: בםוםוסדחע (anenerges), meaning inefficacious. בץפוםוסדויב (autenergeia), meaning self-moving energy. הץףוםוסדויב (dusenergeia), meaning lassitude (= weariness of body or mind; languor; lack of energy resulting from fatigue, says the Oxford Dictionary) ׃ץםוםוסדחע (sunenerges), meaning active simultaneously.

Boanerges doesn't mean Sons of Thunder but Busy Lowing, that is (They) Act Like Oxen.

Contexts of the name Boanerges
Jesus gives some of His disciples a nickname, and since we like to believe that Jesus was always full of love for His people, we also readily assume that His nicknames reflect that appreciation. But quite contrarily, Jesus very often expresses His disappointment towards His disciples. Right before Mark mentions Boanerges, he reports that Jesus renders Simon the name Peter. Peter doesn't mean rock as many believe, but pebble (see our article on the name Peter). Peter is the footloose pebble, but his faith is the petra upon which Jesus would build His church. In Matthew 16:23, Jesus even goes as far as to call Peter satan.

So also He doesn't praise the sons of Zebedee with a lofty-sounding Sons Of Thunder, but rather Thunder Boys, that is Bunch Of Windbags, or All Bark, No Bite. And why? Even though James and John would grow to be giants of the faith, their career started off with some serious hiccups. And those hiccups were invariably met by Jesus' insistence for the boys to pipe down. Luke tells the story of how Jesus and the disciplines are denied lodging in a Samaritan village. James and John helpfully offer to command fire from heaven to destroy the town. Jesus rebukes them by telling them that they have no idea of what kind of spirit they are, and supposed to be (Luke 9:51-56).

Fire from heaven is lightning, and the lightning part is the damaging part. All visible lightning comes with audible thunder, but not all audible thunder comes with visible lightning. Jewish writing tells of a hot spot for Rabbi's called Bene-barak, which is a town in Dan (mentioned in Joshua 19:45), and Bene-barak means Sons Of Lightning. Calling James and John Sons Of Thunder when they propose to command fire from the sky, is highly satirical.

Further up, Luke reports that a dispute arose among the disciples on who would be called the greatest in the Kingdom (22:24-30). Mark adds the detail that James and John were at the heart of the dispute, with their request that Jesus would let them sit at His left and right hand (Mark 10:35-44). But Matthew reveals that behind the two men's impetuous request was the ambition of their mother Salome, who obviously also still had a lot to learn (20:20-28). When Jesus calls James and John the Sons Of Thunder, He may very well have had Salome in mind.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not just saying your argument is a strawman. I will demonstrate how it is.
Your argument take a form like this... If the Gospel writers really knew Jesus, they would all describe his form - whether he was tall, short, or handsome, and how he dressed - just as they described John the Baptist's attire, and David's appearance was described, as well as his son's, and other persons like Sarah.
So there. that proves that they did not know Jesus.
Go ahead. Show me where they described thier leader and teacher.

Strawman argument, that is.

Please don't tell me how my argument reads...... you wrote that.
If you want to reply to my post, just copy the post!

According to John 21:24-25, it reads...
24 This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
25 There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.

So you haven't actually told about any one thing that Jesus did in that verse.

This disciple - "the one Jesus loved", did not write down everything... only what he was inspired by God to write,
No one is authorized to decide what he should have written.
According to the scriptures, Jesus used that disciple.

We think differently about who was the 'one that Jesus loved'.
So far you haven't offered anything about Apostlre or Disciple John.

So we have many evidences. The writer was a disciple of Jesus. He was specifically, the one Jesus loved. He is referred to as John. He wrote many details about Christ's life, and early writers such as Irenaeus (140-203), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155-222) and Origen (185-253) all designated the writer as the apostle John. No one else was suggested by the early church. All say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees.

nPeace........... To quote what you wrote above 'all designated the writer as the apostle John.'
Yes! Apostle John! Not Disciple John. And none of the above met disciple John, although Irenaeus's mentor did.

The style of the Gospel of John, and the letters of John, are similar. The writer confirms that he is an early follower of Christ and eyewitness - 1 John 1:1-4

An early follower of Christ maybe, but not the disciple who followed Jesus.
He didn't even know when Jesus layed waste in the Temple.
And you could not tell me what Jesus did on the first day of his last week in Jerusalem. Not from G-John, you couldn't.

Over to you.
Oh, the strawnaqm burned. Please don't build another.

It's no good you making up what I said and then burning it down.

Now....... you've shown me beyond any doubts whatsoever that you never intended to have a conversation about John. You wanted an argument.

Until you give me an answer to my first point, that G-John was alive in the early first century, or my point that he didn't know what Jesus did in the fist day of his last trip to Jerusalem......... give an honest answer to either and we can continue. OK?

Oh....... and don't put words in my mouth again, please.

 

[nPeace]

@Vouthon

If this were 'John’s Gospel;, I would expect to see clear imprints of his own personal experiences of Jesus. However there are really none

.
Clear imprint? Like what may I ask?

 

[nPeace]

Please don't tell me how my argument reads...... you wrote that.
If you want to reply to my post, just copy the post!


So you haven't actually told about any one thing that Jesus did in that verse.



We think differently about who was the 'one that Jesus loved'.
So far you haven't offered anything about Apostlre or Disciple John.



nPeace........... To quote what you wrote above 'all designated the writer as the apostle John.'
Yes! Apostle John! Not Disciple John. And none of the above met disciple John, although Irenaeus's mentor did.


An early follower of Christ maybe, but not the disciple who followed Jesus.
He didn't even know when Jesus layed waste in the Temple.
And you could not tell me what Jesus did on the first day of his last week in Jerusalem. Not from G-John, you couldn't.


It's no good you making up what I said and then burning it down.

Now....... you've shown me beyond any doubts whatsoever that you never intended to have a conversation about John. You wanted an argument.

Until you give me an answer to my first point, that G-John was alive in the early first century, or my point that he didn't know what Jesus did in the fist day of his last trip to Jerusalem......... give an honest answer to either and we can continue. OK?

Oh....... and don't put words in my mouth again, please.

Have a good day @oldbadger. You have demonstrated that all you have are strawman fallacies, and you want to stand behind them and claim that no one can touch them.
I created the thread for you to show how you know that the writer is not Apostle John. You clearly cannot demonstrate it.
You can stand behind opposing opinions and strawman fallacies, but that makes for no useful discussion.
I don't see how you think they can be.
So take care.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not @oldbager but if I may contribute one post to the topic:

There is nothing in the text of the Fourth Gospel itself which would lead one to conclude that this 'John' Zebedee was the Beloved Disciple whose original witness the gospel is based upon - indeed, the most glaring anomaly being that none - and I do stress none - of the very particular group of ‘Zebedee brothers’ stories we find in the synoptic tradition are included in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. the calling of the Zebedees by Jesus, their presence with Jesus when they witnessed the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration scene, and also of the special request for special seats in Jesus’ kingdom when it comes etc).

I do like your point about G-John not referring to notable incidents mentioned in the synoptics about John BarZebedee. I've come to the same conclusions for other reasons...... his wobbly and stretched timeline. His failure to mention other very notable events. etc.

If this were 'John’s Gospel;, I would expect to see clear imprints of his own personal experiences of Jesus. However there are really none. Instead the Synoptic tradition seems to show forth more experience taken directly from the thought of John the apostle, than does the Fourth Gospel.

Yes. Excellent.

This is especially important, when it is considered that this Gospel places great stress on the crucial role of eyewitness testimony (see especially Jn. 19-21). Is it not really strange that these stories would be omitted if this Gospel was by John of Zebedee, or even if he was its primary source? It is equally strange that the Zebedees are so briefly mentioned in this Gospel as such (see Jn. 21.2) and John is never equated with the Beloved Disciple even in the appendix in John 21 (cf. vs. 2 and 7-- the Beloved Disciple could certainly be one of the two unnamed disciples mentioned in vs. 2).

I'm very attached to the idea that Magdalene was the Beloved, and I get the feeling that Leonardo De Vinci thought so as well.

In Acts 4:13 we read that when Annas, Caiaphas and the Pharisees “saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They marveled, and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus”.

The fact that later church tradition attributed the sophisticated, Qumran-reminiscent theology of the Fourth Gospel to an "unlearned and ignorant" man suggests that they really must have believed in miracles.

Very interesting points.

 

[oldbadger]

Have a good day @oldbadger. You have demonstrated that all you have are strawman fallacies, and you want to stand behind them and claim that no one can touch them.
I created the thread for you to show how you know that the writer is not Apostle John. You clearly cannot demonstrate it.
You can stand behind opposing opinions and strawman fallacies, but that makes for no useful discussion.
I don't see how you think they can be.
So take care.

You are pretending that I use strawman arguments, when you produced them.

I don't think you know much about the subject at all.

You could not answer two simple questions about either John.

Weak.

 

[oldbadger]

@Vouthon
.
Clear imprint? Like what may I ask?

I think that member was quite clear.
G-John didn't offer any anecdotes about what he had actually been involved with during the whole campaign.
For instance....... how could he have overlooked the first three days in Jerusalem, that last week, when the disciple John was so involved?

 

[nPeace]

You are pretending that I use strawman arguments, when you produced them.

I don't think you know much about the subject at all.

You could not answer two simple questions about either John.

Weak.

Did I not? Really? Seriously? You are not kidding me?
Read the post again.

You are free to claim or think what you want @oldbadger. nPeace never starts a thread on anything he doesn't know about.
Do you think there is anything meaningful about back and forth arguments where one person holds to opinions, and the the facts presented by the other are overlooked because the person argues that apostle doesn't mean disciple?
I don't. I think that's a useless waste of my time.

 

[nPeace]

I think that member was quite clear.
G-John didn't offer any anecdotes about what he had actually been involved with during the whole campaign.
For instance....... how could he have overlooked the first three days in Jerusalem, that last week, when the disciple John was so involved?

I'm wondering if you know what that is.

 

[oldbadger]

Did I not? Really? Seriously? You are not kidding me?
Read the post again.

You are free to claim or think what you want @oldbadger. nPeace never starts a thread on anything he doesn't know about.
Do you think there is anything meaningful about back and forth arguments where one person holds to opinions, and the the facts presented by the other are overlooked because the person argues that apostle doesn't mean disciple?
I don't. I think that's a useless waste of my time.

You can run away, thus showing that you can't hold a conversation about G-John, or you could try again.
ere is my first post. No strawmen. Just one point and two qurestions.
I though it would be easier if we started slowly.


I remember asking you if you might know what John wrote about that last week when they went to Jerusalem. For instance, what did Jesus do on the first day after their arrival?
Do you remember my question?

My first point about John is that he was alive in the early first century AD.

Now it's your turn, + that answer I requested.

 

[nPeace]

You can run away, thus showing that you can't hold a conversation about G-John, or you could try again.
ere is my first post. No strawmen. Just one point and two qurestions.
I though it would be easier if we started slowly.


I remember asking you if you might know what John wrote about that last week when they went to Jerusalem. For instance, what did Jesus do on the first day after their arrival?
Do you remember my question?

My first point about John is that he was alive in the early first century AD.

Now it's your turn, + that answer I requested.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[oldbadger]

Have a good day @oldbadger. ..............................
So take care.

You said Goodbye........ and then you came back....... and back........ and back......

 

[nPeace]

You said Goodbye........ and then you came back....... and back........ and back......

I'll be frank with you oldbadger. it's important to leave conversations that go nowhere, because the person you are conversing with, is either not paying attention to what is said, or just don't understand what is said... or something else.

By the way, you are the one who keeps coming back.

 

[oldbadger]

I'll be frank with you oldbadger. it's important to leave conversations that go nowhere, because the person you are conversing with, is either not paying attention to what is said, or just don't understand what is said... or something else.

By the way, you are the one who keeps coming back.

nPeace.....
You started a thread which called to me 'Tell me about John'.
Members like @Vouthon and myself haven't even started yet and you want us to go away and stop posting. That's obvious.

Of course I will keep coming back now until I have offered some more about John BarZebedee and learned a lot more from posts like Vouthon's. But you don't seem to be able to offer anything, nor want to consider anything.
So just leave me to it, please.

Apostle John:
I have read that in the early 1st century John lived on the Island of Patmos, a penal settlement offshore from Ephesia. My focus surrounding this man has always been about his gospel, his Statement. I would be most interested to learn more about him but it is his Statement that interests me.

I think of the gospels as Statements by their writers and that is how I read them. Anything that came about after that last week in the campaign of Jesus doesn't help me very much, because that is mostly about the development of Christianity and not much to do with Jesus and the incidents which happened beforehand imo.

So I would like to focus in my next post upon the young man John who joined with his brother in following Jesus.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace.....
You started a thread which called to me 'Tell me about John'.
Members like @Vouthon and myself haven't even started yet and you want us to go away and stop posting. That's obvious.

Of course I will keep coming back now until I have offered some more about John BarZebedee and learned a lot more from posts like Vouthon's. But you don't seem to be able to offer anything, nor want to consider anything.
So just leave me to it, please.

Apostle John:
I have read that in the early 1st century John lived on the Island of Patmos, a penal settlement offshore from Ephesia. My focus surrounding this man has always been about his gospel, his Statement. I would be most interested to learn more about him but it is his Statement that interests me.

I think of the gospels as Statements by their writers and that is how I read them. Anything that came about after that last week in the campaign of Jesus doesn't help me very much, because that is mostly about the development of Christianity and not much to do with Jesus and the incidents which happened beforehand imo.

So I would like to focus in my next post upon the young man John who joined with his brother in following Jesus.

You have it all wrong, oldbadger. I would not invite you and then want you to go away.... Wait. Is this DeJa Vu, or did this happen before.

Anyway, you have the platform. Remember, I told you the floor is yours.
Enjoy... and take care.

 

[oldbadger]

You have it all wrong, oldbadger. I would not invite you and then want you to go away.... Wait. Is this DeJa Vu, or did this happen before.

Anyway, you have the platform. Remember, I told you the floor is yours.
Enjoy... and take care.

Moving forward.....................

Let's look at Mark's mentions of John, from beginning up until the last week of the mission.

John Bar Zebedee
The description of John that is held by Church Traditions cannot help me in any researches in to the real person. I only have to look at a painting like that of Reubens and as I see a wealthy privileged very healthy and very European John looking back I can feel sure that such Traditions as are held about him cannot help me much. The Russian Orthodox John shown in the Wiki article about him does give me more hope for accuracy as I see a tall, slightly stooped, elderly, greying man with very dark skin. OK, so some anecdotes about John couild be possible but I won't be cradling any reports such as he was in the Patmos Bowls League to my breast.
So let's look at every report about John BarZebedee from the Statements of the disciples. If any students and scholars can add to this from the Statementsd of Magdalene, Thomas or any others then that would be valuable indeed. If any would focus upon his letters then 'fine', but I notice that two of these are doubted.
John in G-Mark:-

Mark 1:19} And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the [son] of
Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. {1:20} And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.

So John could clean and mend nets, that is very skilled work. These nets were made of flax fibres turned in to line, and netters needed tools to do this work. the nets may have been either heavier 'drag' nets or lighter 'gill nets' but to mend either type some form of net needle is required to hold the spare line and to be able to thread it continuously through the netting as it is knotted together. I have never found a picture of an early first century Galilean net needle, but I don't expect that they have altered much in thousands of years.
You will be wondering why I focus so much on net mending? Well, netters needed to acquire net needles and although some may have made their own a skilled tecton who worked in bone, wood or stone might have made a much better job of them. Jesus was a tecton.
Their Father Zebedee had a fishing boat, a ship, and he hired a crew. So John's Dad, who worked in a very very challenging occupation which was taxed in several different ways (if you want to see more just ask) and overseered by some very corrupt rogues was surviving, and, better than that he had a boat large enough to require a paid crew! Zebedee was one very hard bloke for sure.
And John, with his brother James, was clearly a much loved and spoiled young man. Yes, he must have worked long and hard to be able to mend nets (which is harder than making new ones) but was privileged enough to be able to come and go as he pleased.

Mark {1:29} And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. {1:30} But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

John has obviously been allowed to leave all his work to go with Jesus, and has already seen Jesus caste a spirit out of a man in the local synagogue.

Mark {3:17} And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Years ago I married the above statement to reports that Jesus often boarded a boat and stood offshore so that he could address massive collections of people. Back then an RF HJ scholar insisted that 'boat speeches' were rubbish because very few people would be able hear a man in a boat speaking! I already knew better than him about that because on a quiet still morning I had stood on a foreshore listening to two wildfowlers talking about another fowler. They were over half a mile away out in the estuary.
Boatmen may have valued people who could call loudly and clearly across water to shore or to other craft, and maybe Jesus spoke his messages to the Zebedee brothers who then called them out far and wide? 'Sons of Thunder'?
Or maybe the RF Alaskan member's point that these young men and ALL the disciples were hardened tough scrappers, and in fact the nickname was 'Sons of Violence'.

Mark {5:37} And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.

This could show that Jesus trusted these three. We know that Peter was tough, and reports that he kept the Zebedee brothers close as well could suggest that they were equally as tough as Peter. Maybe?

Mark {9:2} And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

And again....... Jesus picked the same three. Did they go up in the Mountain with Jesus for a holy reason, or were they security? In any event I don't see any of these nor the other disciples as meek and mild followers. They were all hardened toughies!

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 forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Pushy, or what? Mark portrays John as a person who will challenge, butt in and dictate to others. I don't see John as a meek quiet spiritual type, rather a toughened youth who can hold his own in a World of extremely hard Galilean boat people and the officers who tried to control and tax them. 'Sons of violence' begins to close on 'Sons of Thunder'.

Mark {10:35} And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. {10:36} And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? {10:37} They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

I cannot help thinking that the Zebedee brothers wanted to know what they would be getting out of the movement. Clearly John was a forward, pushing 'What do I get?' kind of person, and I look forward to reading about his Mother Salome pushing hard for him as well. John was used to getting his way, both with his father, his mother and in his own endeavours. No meek and mild heart, this one, I think.

Mark {10:41} And when the ten heard [it,] they began to be much displeased with James and John.

......... and clearly, John didn't mind upsetting the other disciples with his demands.


And now we enter (Mark's account of) that last week........... next post.