It depends on who “the disciple Jesus loved” (John 19.26) was who was at the cross with Jesus and Jesus’ mother. Tradition and scholarship believe this was John’s oblique reference to himself but that is debatable. If it was the same “the disciple Jesus loved” who was with Jesus at the Last Supper (John 13.23), then John did not forsake the Lord. Personally, I agree.
~Jim
I think you're right; it depends on who the author of this gospel is. Who is the beloved disciple?
-We know that this disciple is the one who leaned against Jesus at the last supper and asked who would betray him (21:20; 13:23-25).
-We know there was a rumor about this disciple in the first century that he would live until Jesus returned (21:21-23).
-We know he was the disciple that went to the tomb with Peter (20:2)
-We know he was at the cross and took care of Mary from then on (19:26).
-We know he had some connecetion to the high priest (18:15-16)
Other things to note:
-He shows good knowledge of Jewish customs and JEwish scripture, meaning he was probably Jewish.
-He was familiar with geographical information in Palestine, meaning he was probably a resident of Judea.
-the sons of Zebedee (James and John) are never mentioned by name in this gospel.
-Peter James and John are the well attested pillars of the early church in Jerusalem, and James was martyred early on leaving only Peter and John.
-There are two other disciples who are not mentioned by name (21:2).
-He was probably a disciple of John the baptist before Jesus (1:35, 40).
One solution to this is that the author is the disciple John. And there is good reason to think this. John was, in addition to Peter, one of the pillars of the early church. He would have known many of the details of Jesus' interactions with his closest disciples. He may have purposefully not mentioned his name for security purposes, after all, his brother had already been killed for his faith and John may have even written this while in exile himself on Patmos. Early church tradition is also pretty solid on the author being John (see Papias). I think the solution that the author is the apostle John is certainly very plausible.
Another interesting solution is that the author was none other than Lazarus. (1) The story of Lazarus only occurs in this gospel and it is given a central place of importance here that the other gospels do not give to it (the other gospels don't even tell this story), more on this piece to follow. (2) Lazarus is presented as being very close to Jesus (ch 11). (3) We are specifically told in this gospel no less than 3 times that Jesus "loved" Lazarus, and we are not told this information about any of the other disciples (11:3, 5, 11, 36). The thinking here is that Lazarus is hiding his identity because he is in danger of arrest in the first century. Why? Note the response of the Jewish leaders' to Lazarus' resurrection - they plan to kill Lazarus as well (12:10). Lazarus would need some cover if he were writing dangerous literature, so he doesn't mention his own name. And this would make good sense of the rumor at the end of the gospel that the writer would live until Jesus' return. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, people might very well have thought that he would live until the second coming.
This also explains two other things that happen in Matthew Mark and Luke: (1) the absense of Lazarus and (2) the mysterious man in the garden in Mark's gospel. The absence of Lazarus in Matthew through Luke would be, also, because of the need to keep Lazarus protected from the authorities. A man raised by Jesus that was still walking around after Jesus' death would be a very dangerous individual indeed. In Mark 14:51 there is a mysterious individaul who runs off naked in the chaos of the arrest of Jesus in the garden. Some people have suggested that this man is Lazarus and that Mark is purposefully not mentioning his name (Matthew and Luke don't even mention this detail at all). The interesting thing to note here is that the word used in 14:51 for "linen cloth" is used everywhere else when refering to grave clothes (Matt 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). Is this a purposeful attempt to disclose the identity of this man with a reference to grave clothes? One of the most interesting suggestions I've seen is that Lazarus actually went into Jerusalem with Jesus during his triumphal entry WEARING HIS GRAVE CLOTHES. The effect would have been enormous if this happened - Jesus rides in acting like a messiah along with his followers, one of which Jesus raised from the dead and was still wearing his grave clothes to show it! No doubt the crowds and leaders would have been interested in such a man entering Jerusalem. I don't know if I would buy that explanation, but it's an interesting idea.
In any case, I think the author is likely either John or Lazarus. Whoever he is he writes from and insiders perspective and he writes to an audience who I think would have readily recognized who he was with the little hints he drops here and there through the story. Unfortunately, we are not that first century audience so the author's identity is a little more muddy to us.
Oh, and whoever he was, he obviously didn't abandon Jesus since he followed him to the cross according to the story.
But I asked a simple question back at #11 no one has yet answered. In fact, your tactic seems to be to cloud the issue by repeating old questions of your own. And I do not feel obligated to answer any of your questions until you at least answer the simple one. Here it is again
