Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved

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

John 20
I don't know what "although John 20 has these two figures together, even in early times" is suppose to mean. The sentence once was referring to an event in the Gospel of John (and a fairly important one) when Mary Magdalene tells Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus' tomb is empty. The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news. They appear "together" in the scene with Simon Peter. An editor has added "even in early times" to the end of the sentence. I am not sure if this editor means that John 20:2 existed in the earliest versions of John's gospel or that early Christians knew Mary wasn't the Beloved Disciple because of oral traditions of Mary telling those two disciples, or something else. The same editor then goes on to discuss the gnostic Gospel of Mary. I would like this editor to explain what "even in early times" adds to the sentence in questions. -Acjelen 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Aclelen wrrites: "The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news." I believe, an assumption on your part--Tomtom9041 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How? -Acjelen 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been shown that there are inconsistencies in the text of these verses, both in the narrative flow and in the structure, that give fairly strong evidence that the text has been redacted. These have the rather odd tendency to appear whenever the Beloved Disciple and Mary are portrayed in the same setting. For instance, Mary is tracked up until the point where she runs from the tomb to tell Peter (and supposedly the Beloved Disciple), before she suddenly reappears at the tomb, etc.. Essentially, the gospel of John retains her in every place where tradition has already firmly placed her (where it would be conspicous to replace her outright; in these places, she appears together with the "Beloved Disciple"), whereas she is replaced in other locations. There's some fairly strong evidence elsewhere as well, plus the bits about her and Peter more or less competing; with Peter going on to pretty much found the church, it's no wonder an anonymous alternate author is considered more appealing than a woman. Although I guess you could say that it's simply more appealing than the idea that Peter would try to hide her role in this, since that would be a pretty grave sin (pride, envy, etc.) by e.g. Catholic standards... (Like the bit about "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.")
 * I'm not going to argue the point here, as there are already several works out there that deal with this that I'm not going to repeat, but if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance. Zuiram 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have reverted your addition to the article without reading the talk page. I'm sorry.  If you could summarize the issue of a redactor spliting Mary into Mary and the Beloved Disciple, that would be a good addition, but I think it deserves more treatment that a single clause.  Also if writer Brown has a book with these ideas, it should be listed in the references.  There have been a number of books about Mary lately.  I wonder if any of them mention (or don't mention) this redaction idea. -Acjelen 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see: (a) how ANY of the Beloved Disciple verses refer to Mary Magdalene, and (b) how her being female has any relevence to this. The verses in John that mention the Beloved Disciple are John 13:23-25; John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:2-7; John 21:20. In John 13:23-25, the Beloved Disciple is listed as a male, and the only people listed at the Last Supper are the Twelve Disciples. In John 19:26, he says the Beloved Disciple is to be the son to Mary, and Mary to be his mother.  In John 20:2, Mary Magdalene comes to the Beloved Disciple to report the news of the resurrection. In John 21:2-7, a group of men (listed in verse 2... John is one of the “sons of Zebedee”) are fishing, and the Beloved Disciple sees Jesus.  In John 21:20, Peter is wanting to find out what is to happen to the Beloved Disciple (John has historically been understood to be the youngest of the Twelve), and there is a reference to this being the same Beloved Disciple as from John 13:23-25.  Literally every verse supports the maleness of the Beloved Disciple.  I suppose you could claim that these verses were "redacted," but without these verses, you don't even have a Beloved Disciple (by this, I mean if you got rid of the male-specific verses, there are literally no other mentions).


 * As for the idea that "if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance," there's just no basis. The idea it was Mary is a recurring minority view that has never found broad acceptance, and there's just no textual support for the position.  Supporters of the view have to try and analogize between John and Gnostic texts (even though John almost certainly predates these competiting texts).  Add to that the fact that John is the most fiercely anti-Gnostic of the Gospels (Doubting Thomas, the divinity/humanity of Christ in John 1, etc.), and there's just no plausible theory for why an anti-Gnostic would write in a bunch of pro-Gnostic ideas, only to have them mysteriously redacted by unknown editors, and replaced with wholly different references.  Am I missing something?  Is there anything in John's Gospel itself to support these views?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Verses John 20:2-10, describing the visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple to the grave after hearing the news from Mary Magdalene, seem to be added to the Gospel in a later phase. Verse 20:11 seems to continue right from where 20:1 ended. The reason may have been to make the male Beloved Disciple an eye-witness to the empty tomb and justify the final note "this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down" (John 21:24). Without verses 20:2-10, this note could immediately have been understood as a reference to Mary Magdalene, the testifier of resurrection in all the Gospels.


 * Note also how Luke 24:12 has only Peter running to the tomb. Interestingly, the words and actions in verses 20:2-10 are so similar to Luke's account, that who ever wrote them, seems to have had Luke's Gospel at hand, something the original author certainly did not have. Mark and Matthew have no male disciples visiting the grave at all.


 * If Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple, then for any other reference to the Beloved Disciple, the matter has only been changing the female pronouns to male ones. --219.2.82.66 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which John is Which
One element of identifying the Beloved Disciple is the question of who wrote the Gospel of John and whether the John in the gospel's title refers to the apostle and son of Zebedee or to some other man named John.
 * This is addressed at Authorship of John

In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).
 * It is this by definition.

An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England. In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple.
 * No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.

But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a relationship with Jesus.
 * That's splitting hairs.

In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king
 * He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the King James Version exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?

would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.
 * As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.

I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article. -Acjelen 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To the person who contributes from the computer identified as 81.156.177.21: I do not understand what you write. You seem to argue against points I have not made and ignore ones I do. When James I compared his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham to Jesus' relationship with John, which John did he mean? Did he mean the theoretical John the Evangelist or John the Apostle or did James I think they were the same person? I ask you to answer one. Then I would like you to change this article to reflect that. If you want to use James I as evidence that the Beloved Disciple was John the Evangelist and not some other person named John (such as John the Apostle), then it would be better to state so more clearly. -Acjelen 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

And of course, what exactly James I meant by saying that Buckingham was "his John" is ambiguous. He may have been denying a homosexual relationship by comparing his with Buckingham to Jesus and John's. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Finally, I would respectfully ask that you improve upon others writing and not just revert back to your initial edit of the article. Thank you. -Acjelen 20:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Judas as beloved disciple
Read this in Gospel of Judas: "The portion of the manuscript that could be translated by later scholars tells of Judas being the favourite disciple of Jesus, possibly intended to be interpreted as the beloved disciple." Is it worth including? Cheesy 00:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Judas Iscariot has the same problem being the Beloved Disciple as does Mary Magdalene: each appears in a scene with the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John. -Acjelen 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, this is not necessarily a problem. The narrative flow and internal structure is inconsistent and incoherent in every section that deals with the Beloved Disciple. And with the Beloved Disciple dead at the time of the last redactions, there would be no reason to conceal his/her identity, except if it might lead to controversy. Judas and Mary both fit the bill, although the apocryphal texts (NHC etc.) seem to support Mary over Judas ("That is why he loved her more than us.", etc)...
 * Both theories are fairly common, and bear mentioning. It is, after all, the point of WP to document what is out there in an NPOV manner, not to make a decision where there is controversy. Zuiram 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Another reason Mary could be the Beloved Disciple despite the double mention is to obscure her identity. The very purpose of the roundabout phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" is to obscure one's identity, so... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a problem as neither Judas nor Mary are ever described in any source as the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" and hence they have no place in this article as such, only through a short note that some (very few) modern authors have opined that they are. Terms like "favourite disciple" and "he loved her more than others" do not qualify them. That both Judas and Mary appear alongside the "beloved disciple" in the 4th Gospel is of course contradictory to those theories. But there is no contradiction between canonical and non-canonical writings on this. Str1977 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources of Quotes
Sorry if I've missed something, but there seems to have been a fair bit of discussing whether the quote from King James is relevent (in my opinion, yes) but has anyone stated where the quote actually comes from? What is its source? -- Saluton 01:11 15th April 2006 (UMT)

Mark 9:38_Luke 9:49
reference to the other disciple whom Jesus loved can be found in Mark 9:38_And John answered Him,saying Master,we saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followeth not us;and we forbade him,because he followeth not us.(this same quote is found in Luke 9:49) In John 21:20_Then Peter,turning about,seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following;which also leaned on his breast at supper,and said,Lord,which is he that betrayeth thee? In John 21:23_Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,that that disciple would not die. This is how and why the Disciples of Simon Peter started the myth of The Wandering Jew,to explain away(in negative terms)someone they felt was a threat to their church.For this same reason they also turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute even though the gospel contains no mention of this. After all,the various gnostic and apocraphyl gospels may be in dispute,but one thing remains certain:only one apostle denied Jesus three times and tried to proclaim himself greatest of the twelve,and that was Simon Peter:The Prince Of Apostles.


 * While this may have bearing on your relation with the church, etc., it does not have any direct bearing on the subject of this talk page: discussing how to improve the text of the article in keeping with the policies of WP. It is not a soapbox. Zuiram 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question and comment
Question: There are references in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail indicating that Lazarus might have been this disciple, which also makes reference to prior versions of the theory. That might be relevent for inclusion in this article. Comment:I question the use of the Image:Jesus johannes.jpg image in the article, as it seems to be a backhanded reference to the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. I can see a direct reference to that article being included here, but the image without explanation seems to not make a great deal of sense. John Carter 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous versions of this article have included mention of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple. It is probably worthwhile to add a summary of the treatment of the issue from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  As to the image, it seemed the best free use image I could fine.  It's hard to find iconography that might not also be John the Apostle.  The scene carved is a rather literal presentation of the positioning of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper (though the probably weren't sitting), see John 13:23.  I might add that the image was on this article lone before Homosexual readings of Jesus and John.  There's nothing overtly homosexual about it.  No kissing, no felatio or sodomy, no indications of living together or being a couple.  In no way is it campy.  No hint of Wildean rent-boys or dark parlors.  Maybe Whitmanesque (and that probably influenced my choice), but that'd be hard to avoid considering the subject. -Acjelen 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * HBHG's hardly a reputable NPOV source, given that Baigent's editor of Freemasonry Today, and large chunks of the book have been found to be a most elaborate hoax, interspersed with provable facts.

Forgive me, but why do you think that for something to be gay it has to have 'kissing, felatio or sodomy'? For something to be heterosexual does it have to have kissing, cunnilingus and vaginal intercourse? No it doesn't. It is possible for gay people to be represented as loving each other as opposed to having sex, you know.
 * My definition was much broader than kissing, felatio, or sodomy. -Acjelen 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It included a "campy" visualization, rent-boys and dark parlors as well.  I understand that, from this context, you may not approve of homosexuality, but you're doing yourself a huge disfavor by limiting your understanding of homosexuality to gross misrepresentation.
 * Neither. Firstly, the end of a long day may well see friends crashed out in all directions without any imputation being possible either way, just look at TV for an evening - and you'd as easily be able to argue a circle of male dancers in a Jerwish wedding are all homosexual as this. You're therefore talking in a cultural vacuum: although Greek practices undoubtedly had an influence on the culture, you should develop the Jewish take on the Cana marriage feast - that Cana was the Magdalen's home town, that it was inconceivable for the heir to the Throne of David could not be unmarried, and that it is and always was the responsibility of the bridegroom to provide the wine, so Cana is almost certainly Jesus' own marriage, and in context it's almost certainly to the Magdalen. Secondly, Jesus' central ministry in his pacifist avatar was focused on love. You really should go read CS Lewis' exposition on the different forms of love before going any further in this direction. For completeness, I should also mention the other avatar, prefigurative of Christ Triumphant, insofar as he knowingly has followers of the Sicarius faction - Simon Peter, for instance, used a sicarius on Malchus in the Gethsemane garden, and is barely rebuked.


 * This is nothing new, and mankind has been doing this to their enemies for all times. The earliest Christians were said to sacrifice babies and have ongoing orgies.  The Church Fathers said conflicting reports on the Gnostics, which included sexual promiscuity.  To this day, many Anti-Semetic Muslim organizations explain that Jews use Muslim (and Christian) babies' blood in their passover meals.


 * Do as you may, but at the least respect yourself and understand exactly what it is you are talking about and not fall into the ignorant trappings of prejudice. You'll go a lot farther with that, and you'll be a better person as well.  74.77.122.119 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I would say to Warlord that the image isn't in any way a reference to any homosexual reading of the relationship between Christ and John the Beloved but is a pretty accurate representation of how the disciple is described leaning on Christ's breast in the Gospel. ThePeg 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the image was here first, and later borrowed for use elsewhere, then my comment above regarding the image is withdrawn. Thank you for the clarification. John Carter 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Purposeful anonymity?
In the Lenten devotional guide A Season for the Spirit, Martin L. Smith SSJE suggests that perhaps the disciple whom Jesus loved"'...is never named, never individualized, so that we can more easily accept that he bears witness to an intimacy that is meant for each one of us. The closeness that he enjoyed is a sign of the closeness that is mine and yours because we are in Christ and Christ is in us." Is this reading sufficiently widespread or notable to merit inclusion in the article? I can provide a full citation if it is. I've been reading Smith's book over the course of Lent this year, and found it very inspirational, but I don't know whether it would be considered encyclopedic or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The anonymity is purposeful. Any mainstream apologetic interpretation is encyclopedic, as long as it's a report of published remarks, which are cited in a note. This isn't a statement of fact from Wikipedia; it's a justification as offered by a specific Anglican. So, no problem!--Wetman 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done — thanks! I just wanted to make sure that this sort of exegesis was appropriate for Wikipedia — I could see a potential problem arising if people started putting in every sermon interpreting a given text, but I suppose that that's taken care of by the requirement of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

In response to that Mary Magdalene bit, I think that the support this article offers is really shady. For example, the cite to John 19:25 is actually to 19:25 and the first half of 26, but the quote stops at a really misleading point. If the rest of 26 is included, it's pretty clear that the Beloved Disciple isn't Mary Magdalene, but John, since MM isn't a "son" (obviously, John isn't literally Mary's son, but the point is that he's in charge of taking care of her, as her biological Son is dying). The entire section of trying to prove that MM might be the Beloved Disciple is really POV, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorship
authorship of johannie books shouldn't be discussed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure it should, as the beloved disciple is the author of one of those books. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, I disagree with your today edits. In litterature you can find every positions about John authorship. It is not enough to cite only one text, all POVs shall be listed. The point is that John authorship can be presumed only by internal analysis, i.e. by guess. To demonstrate the falsity of the statement "all scholar agree..." I cite a recent text by scholar M. Barker -isbn 0567087166 (2000)- where at page 78 the scholar says that John wrote also the fourth Gospel. I remember it because I've read it last month, but if I look I can find many other examples. The author of Moby dick is Melville -by external proofs- so Wiki can use explicit statement. For John authorship the issue is by far more complicate with many positions and no external evidences So I strongly suggest to respect all POVs -including the faith POV- and list all of them. Or to discuss authorship of johannie books in the proper article and leave here only the statement you deleted, i.e. "most scholars consider". A ntv (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best RSs out there are university-level textbook, and I'm just citing what mine says. If you can find a source of comparable quality that says something else, cite it. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's actually two university-level textbooks that say the beloved disciple wasn't John, not just Harris. If this is really an open question in contemporary academic circles, just find a good, academic source (preferably another textbook) that says so. My textbooks say that the case is closed, so that's what I write in the article. Citing RSs is how WP works. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just 2 minutes search on Google Books: From the above it is clear that the evidence in favor to Johannine authorship is by no mean negligable from pag 12 of Leon Morris The Gospel according to John (1995) (you shoud also read the whole first chapter where the author support his statement). Or John remains the most likely candidate pag 13 of Scott Hahn The Gospel of John (2003) . Ok I gave you 3 clear reference of scholars who do NOT agree with you thesis. Because Wiki shall list all POVs, it is more honest to say "Most scholars", not "All scholars", something that is not true. Leon Morris text is a 843 page commentary that is by far of a level above university-level textbook. A ntv (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These sources are religious. If you'd like to include a section on scholars who buck the academic trend and back a traditional Christian view, that would seem appropriate. As for Morris being "by far of a level above university-level textbook," are you stating a personal opinion, or are you paraphrasing WP policy? The verifiability policy (WP:v) says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." If there's a policy that puts Morris above Harris and Thiessen (two university-level textbooks), show us. Leadwind (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the point is if Morris is above Harris or viceversa? I agree with you: it is a POV. I dont say that Morris is right or not, but simply that he wrote a book published by respected publishing house. The same for the other references. We are in the field of the POVs. By the way, Stephen L. Harris was a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, so we cannot consider him NPOV: he has a own POV. I don't want that wiki states "John wrote the Gospel", but we shall list the existence also the other modern scholar POVs. To state "Modern scholars hold that the Apostle John did not write the gospel attributed to him" is false! I gave you three scholars that think the contrary. So I suggest to state something like "Most modern scholars hold that...". The issue is already analyzed in the proper article. We cannot synthesize a so complex issue in a simple sentence. Let's try to be NPOV. A ntv (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)A, you've shown that Harris's statement requires qualification. It's not enough to say "Modern scholars think..." You suggest "Most modern scholars...," but I think that's a little bit of a dodge. The phrase "most" makes it seem like it's just an issue of numbers. This issue isn't a difference of numbers, it's a difference of orientation. Rather than saying "most," let's say "Generally..." That's more accurate. The general consensus is John didn't write these books. If someone has a particular outlook (e.g., thinking that scholarship is drifting away from Mother Church), one might reach a particular conclusion that's different from the general one, but the general conclusion is No, BD wasn't John. And you have shown that there's a clear trend in Christian scholarship toward giving John more respect as a potential evangelist. That's noteworthy. Leadwind (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for you edit that is very correct. You are a great Wikipedian. The very problem of this kind of statements is that they are based on very weak evidences and supported almost only by a consensus in some circles of scholars. The main 'evidence' of not-Johnannine authorship is that it is difficult to imagine John to boast about being the beloved disciple. A 'not-a-evidence' in a scientific way to proceed. A reader of Wiki should realize whether a statement is supported by some evident proof (as an ancient papyrus) or simply by a guess generally shared in by scholars A ntv (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. Glad we could work it out. Leadwind (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a citation needed to "a growing number". This is (perhaps) cited to a book from 2003, which can no longer be called current or reflect current trends. Normally when writers say "increasingly scholars say ..." or something similar they are expressing their own views, so comments like this should be viewed with suspicion. If this claim can be supported by clear evidence and trends then it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawikcorner44 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My textbooks say that the case is closed, so that's what I write in the article. Some things hardly change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Homoeroticism
I find the removal of this whole section pretty irritating. It is no less fringe than the rest of the claims made in the article and is properly source. You can't just go taking out something you don't like to hear. And at the same time why on earth do we have to have biblical refrences cited in-line throughout the article? It makes the whole thing impossible to read and feels like I'm sitting through a sunday school lesson. 09:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)
 * I've removed the portions of this section which were not sourced, and merged the discussion of art into the section on that topic (adding an image to reinforce it). I've also removed the line on "enjoying the milk of the Lord" which did indeed occur in the cited reference, but nowhere else at all that I could find on Google -- so the reference seems somewhat unreliable.
 * And I'm not sure what your problem with biblical references is: they are quite essential here in referring to the primary text. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole section was from the same source - if you want me to add the reference to every single paragraph then I will; but I think it makes just as much sense putting it at the end. I think in-article biblical citations are clumsy and make for hard reading. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored this and put the source at the end of each paragraph to avoid confusion. The art bit needs to go alongside this text in order for it to make sense. 'Milk of the Lord' sounds credible and I'll try and find an additional source. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we've disposed of the first paragraph (partly merged and partly shown to be dubious). The comment "according to the playwright Christopher Marlowe as reported by the informer Richard Baines" can probably be backed up by a more reliable source, but it seems hearsay that tells us nothing about the subject of this article, and quite possibly not even about Marlowe (although I note it is mentioned in Sexuality of Jesus).   The third paragraph, about a gay religious organisation in New York, also seems irrelevant here, so I don't see that anything needs to be added back in. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I guess that's your opinion - you can't just cut stuff out if you're personally uncomfortable with it. I don't see that we need to provide a reference to the depositions of Baines, but you're welcome to look if you think it's important. The first para makes sense in the context of the second 2 paras and the milk of the Lord is not dubious if understood in the context of medieval spirituality. Why do you assume it to be dubious in any case? The third para is how the issue links with the modern day. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeat that much of those three paragraphs is irrelevant to the subject of the article. I also note that you've added a reference to "The Miracles of the Gospels: The Lord's Milk: A Series of 20 Minute Bible Studies for the New Christian, J.O.Y. Publishing, 2004", but this doesn't seem to support the statement it's attached to, in breach of WP:CITE. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AND it seems to be a copyvio. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify that: all three paragraphs seem to be copied verbatim from the cited source, without quote marks. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved by removing text copied from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iQpHAAAAMAAJ per WP:CP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh - you go to such lengths to keep stuff you don't like out of the article don't you! To help you I'm very happy to rewrite so there's no copy violation. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now done - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 - I've tried to play fair and address concerns and approach this is a conciliatory way, but I'm beginning to think that you're showing bias. You don't seem to be looking to improve the article but rather don't want the issue of homoeroticism covered at all. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please set your arguments out properly so they can be addressed. It is not helpful to continue deleting text in an edit-war. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have raised a number of issues which you are ignoring, even though you have addressed the copyvio issue:
 * 1) You are making a claim about medieval belief without reliable sources. You may think that the accusation of Marlowe means something about beliefs current at the time, but we can't insert that in Wikipedia without a reliable secondary or tertiary source (i.e. a history book) supporting that.
 * 2) Discussions of the "Beloved Disciple" in art should go in the section about that topic.
 * 3) Discussions about religious groups in New York in the 1970s are interesting (I suggest you write an article on that group), but they are not relevant to this article.
 * I also remind you of the three-revert rule. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid these arguments simply do not hold water. The claim on medieval belief uses the Dyne source. This is a valid secondary source. And if you don't think that's the case then you must explain why? The Marlowe accusation again is drawn from Dyne. And the modern example is relevant as it shows modern day attitudes to the beloved disciple. May I also say that you're showing a degree of inconsistency on arguments why the text should not be included; and have worked very hard to avoid any mention of homo-eroticism. I'm happy to make amendments to improve the article if concerns are really about robustness of sources; but I will not accept that the issue of homo-eroticism be excluded because it doesn't fit with the structure of the article as we currently have. There's no point hiding behind the 3-revert rule. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this Wikipedia editing business, as I have never been inclined to edit anything before today. The entire section on homo-eroticism in this article is dubious and slanderous, and by its own admission "has an absence of scriptural basis." The slanderous nature, by itself, is not (and should not) be grounds for removal. However, it does penetrate a deeper understanding of the motives behind a) its authorship, and b) its inclusion in this article. Wikipedia is not a blog, this is not a popular opinion page. News is encyclopedic-worthy, and stories (such as the one about Christopher Marlowe) deserve their own pages with (at most) a mention by this page. But an abundance of sources does not prove or even evidence an encyclopedic-worthy topic. The thesis sentence "Consideration must also be given..." is by nature and definition not encyclopedic, but rather an imperative command given by the author.

I could find several people who would profess a belief that the sky is red. I might even convince them to write a college paper or blog article on the subject. But none of this suggests that a section entitled "the sky is red theories" is worth posting on the Wikipedia article about the sky. Contaldo80 - I have reviewed the discussions on this and it is clearly you who are biased on this particular matter. Your own discussion page mentions "you have a vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere." Please consider the ridiculous nature of this section as grounds for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the signature? I am new to this, my apologies. 24.129.77.95 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Ryan


 * It's always good to see a new user and I welcome you to the debate. However, I fundamentally disagree with the points you set out above and feel you have misrepresented what I have said on my user page. I have nowhere said that "I have a vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere." An apology would be nice. And incidentally the sky is red from time to time. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that quote was not yours, but rather someone else posting on your own user page. Read section #10, entitled "LGBT." Yes, the example of the red sky may not have been the best. But you must acknowledge that there do exist certain sub-categories and sub-topics of other topics that, while on-topic, are not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. The definition of encyclopedia needs to be thoroughly examined, in which you will find that the intention is to inform the user of facts relevant and verifiable, with at least a small amount of evidence. Again, the evidence put forth in the article is not evidence at all, simply a very unsubstantiated theory with stories of people in history who have been affected by such theories. I can further prove that your article about homo-eroticism is meritless. Try including the article in the Wikipedia page about Jesus. I can assure you it won't last 5 minutes, and everyone will agree it is far too unsubstantiated to be included in an encyclopedia. And, yes it is entirely relevant to the subject of Jesus. If it's noteworthy on this page, it is noteworthy on the page about Jesus also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try and put aside the misrepresentation of the comments on my user page, and the suggestion that I have been biased. To turn to the article itself, the arguments that you make could just as well be made against the section on Mary Magdalene except with greater force. The references here are much weaker. While I accept that encyclopaedia articles should not and can not include every minor issue, I would argue that the subject of homoeroticism is significant and of enough interest to warrant inclusion. The references I've cited are suitably reliable and mainstream. The question is whether the length of text is proportionate. I would argue that it is but happy to collect thoughts. I've tried to keep it deliberately tight and focused while needing to set enough of the context for it to make sense. I've included facts and they are reliable and verifiable. But if you don't think a particular fact is then please say so. Overall I don't think St John and Christ were lovers, and I've stated that the scriptural evidence is weak or non-existent to support such a reading with certainty. But that isn't the point of this text. I'm not aiming to establish that - the point is to flag that there are some people that have developed this interpretation and set out why. Nor am I saying Jesus was gay; - hence there isn't a need to include something on the main Jesus article. I'm specifically covering the interpretation of the "beloved disciple" relationship. If there was something convincing to say on the Jesus article then I hope I would be free to add something in the knowledge that other contributors had been able to put their personal religious beliefs to one side and avoid taking offence. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Can I suggest you and others spend some time look at the other parts of this article as well as the section on homoeroticism? I have used 8 reliable sources for my section of texts whereas others have little or none. The section on Judah has a reference to youtube! Otherwise this will suggest a degree of bias against the coverage of LGBT issues, which would be unfortunate. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Homoeroticism in the Bible is technically referred to as "Queer reading" which, much like "creation myth," appears to be a slanderous term but instead is a technical term. Any discussion of homoerotic exegesis here will require presenting a discussion of "Queer reading"─much of which is written by openly homosexual scholars. (Stone, Ken. Queer commentary and the Hebrew Bible. Pilgrim Press, 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0829814477) Next it may need to be explained that biblical interpretation is one of those areas of social life for which "queer politics might have implications." Author Stone opines: "The much-discussed interdisciplinary explosion of multiple approaches and methods within biblical scholarship, on the one hand, and the rapid growth in lesbian and gay studies and queer theology outside of biblical scholarship, on the other hand, combine to produce a situation in which the proliferation of queer readings of the Bible seems today like a real future possibility...." (p.11) And so it goes. 'Queer Theory' and 'queer' readings make a difference to biblical exegesis. We cannot just drop a bomb into a section entitled "Homoeroticism" in this article without a much fuller explanation of the whole issue of Lesbian and Gay Studies and Queer Theory in biblical interpretation. Unless and until such a decision is made, I have removed the section from this article. With respect, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt really that we do have to include reams of information about a "queer theory of Biblical interpretation". But if you think it adds real value then please go ahead and do so. But I would suggest that you keep it to the point and direct readers to connected articles rather than repeat arguments at length in this article. But I really do think we're over-stating it by describing at as a "bombshell" when readers will already have considered the sexual implications under the Mary Magdalen section. Nevertheless I trust you to keep it proportionate and even-handed. I've already had one contributor sign into my user page and tell me that I was "being prayed for" and was wandering into the realm of Satan. My feeling is that the text be actually woven into the section under St John but won't do until we resolve other issues.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now shortened the text and woven it into the section around St John where this most logically fits. I should have done this ages ago but fear that we have become distracted here. We've turned it into a debate about perceived "gay activism" and distorting religious messages in the Bible etc. When really what we should have considered is does it makes sense, is it expressed in the right way, is it robust? We need to avoid bringing our personal views into this - me included.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AFA Prof01 - I appreciate what you've try to do to set the context but I've changed a little as I'm really not sure it works. It isn't necessary I don't think to describe in detail the history of homosexuality; nor do we need to emphasise that these are allegations. They're not. What they are is an interpretation of the relationship between Christ and the Beloved Disciple. It is not intended to be factually true or to prove that there was a relationship but rather to demonstrate that it has been a strand in Western Christian thought (albeit in a heretical context). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A discussion here, which so far hasn't gone anywhere, may be of interest. I was wondering how to repeat references when there is further explanation in the footnote. Should this be done the way I did it?


 * Personally, i find the whole idea blasphemous, but on Wikipedia we must respect all viewpoints when writing articles. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say as a queer person, the removal of the section talking about the fact that this might have been Jesus’s gay lover, incredibly disappointing. I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Jesus was gay and that the beloved disciple was his lover. I think a queer reading of the text is very important. I think it should be included Dabblequeen (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Five or Six?
These statements seem to contradict each other:

Is it five or six? Or is there something about the precise wording that allows both statements to be true? M-1 (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see only five verses: John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, each with one "loved" (four ἠγάπᾱ and one ἐφίλει—the central one). Iavs leroy (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)