Who is the other disciple in John 1:35,40?

[Isatis]

John 1:35,40
35 Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

What these verses are telling us is that one of the two disciples was Andrew. Period. We don't know who the other disciple was, do we?

Now, what I don't understand is why Bible scholars say that the other disciple was probably John himself. I mean, how did they come up with this assumption?

Any ideas?

 

[Jedidia]

It was in John's gospel and the assumption is that the other times that the gospel of John refers to 'the disciple that Jesus loved' also refers to John out of modesty of mentioning himself. Some traditional beliefs (not sure where this was read from) believe that all the disciples remaining at the time of John's writing got together and formed their beliefs into that last gospel. If so it could have been any one of them. The 'gnostic' gospel of Mary Magdeline' places her as the disciple that Jesus loved'. Some food for thought.

 

[Isatis]

It was in John's gospel and the assumption is that the other times that the gospel of John refers to 'the disciple that Jesus loved' also refers to John out of modesty of mentioning himself.

that's why I thought and kinda makes sense but would rather keep it a mystery and called him "the other disciple". As a matter of fact, we don't hear much about him in John 1.

 

[Jedidia]

It makes sence to me also that the outline given to the 'newly developed theory' vs the church father's response and understanding is explained by encompasing the belief that it was compiled and written by the remaining disciples/ eyewitnesses of Jesus. I don't see that highly problematic at all.

.....snip...According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,
summarised by Raymond E. Brown as follows:
1)An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2)A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3)The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.
In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth....snip
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

 

[DamianWarS]

since "John the Baptist" has the same first name as "John the Beloved" I have always found it a little confusing. In John's gospel it records 5 disciples being called in the first chapters. These disciples in order are:

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of John
the "two disciples" who are Andrew and an "unnamed" disciple - John 1:37
Andrew then tells his brother Simon (or Peter) who follows Jesus - John 1:42
Jesus "finds" Philip and calls him - John 1:42
Philip then tells Nathanael (who is thought of as Bartholomew) - John 1:45

If we contrast this with the other Gospels there is a bit of a difference:

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Mark
Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew are called together - Mark 1:16
James and his brother John are called together - Mark 1:20

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Matthew (almost identical to Mark)
Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew are called together - Matthew 4:20
James and his brother John are called together - Matthew 4:22

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Luke
Simon, James and John "left everything and followed Him" (no mention of Andrew) - Luke 5:1-11

John's gospel is the only one that records this early discipleship with these "two disciples", one being Andrew and the other unnamed where the others ones all have a similar story of the first disciples being called as they are fishing. Luke gives the greatest detail of Jesus calling Simon (Peter) and his companions (James and John are named) during this fishing session. Since Matthew, Luke, or Mark are not among these "first followers" their knowledge will be based on second hand information. John however is consistently among the first called so his knowledge would probably be more accurate however his name is not mention in John's own gospel.

I think it is safe to assume that John then is this "unnamed" disciple in John since it doesn't exactly go against the other gospel but provides greater detail for specific disciples and also it seems clear that John was among the first called. The differences of the gospels are likely because of either generalization like we see probably in Matthew and Mark or in the case of Luke perhaps a one-sided story with again generalization from the others.

It is interesting to see Luke's account of when they were first called as it appears from his opening in Luke 1:1 he does his best to present everything in "in consecutive order" and did a investigation from "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" from the beginning. Simon seems to have a relationship with Jesus before he started to follow him in Chapter 4 when Jesus goes to Simon’s home and heals his mother-in-law. Matthew and Mark record this event as well after they were called and Mark explicitly shows that James, John, Andrew and Simon were with Jesus during this visit. In Luke, during this fishing scene, when Luke identifies the first called, Peter called Jesus "Master" before he follows him. So Luke shows that before the first were called there was a respected relationship with Jesus even though they were not yet disciples. This perhaps could explain why different accounts have different calling times as it is clear in Luke that even though he didn't consider them called yet they had a relationship with Jesus. Since Luke's perspective appears to have the most detail about Simon's call I suspect Luke got his information from Peter himself who told Luke how he saw it. Where Luke and John are consistent is that they knew Jesus and respected him at an early date however John simply identified his call (and Andrew's) at the time when they first met Jesus and not at this fishing experience as Luke identifies.

I suspect Luke's account is actually Peter's perspective who was the "eyewitness" Luke talks to about this account and John's account is his own's. Luke probably doesn't mention Andrew because Peter again probably is the one who told Luke and assumed his role since he was his brother. This is probably the same reason why John's leaves out his brother James as he probably is assuming his story along with his own.

So the first disciples called are John and Andrew, then after that their brothers, James and Peter.

 

[Isatis]

I don't see that highly problematic at all.

Nor do I, was simply wondering how Bible scholars came up with this assumption but to me it is the "other disciple", not John even though there are strong arguments - especially those given by Damian - that it has to be John.

Have you watched the gospel of John movie? You'll notice that even in the movie, the "other disciple" is John.
Here is the video on youtube, John is with Andrew and John the Baptiste, toward the end of part 1/19 at 7:40.

Gospel Of John - The Movie Part 1 of 19 - YouTube

 

[Isatis]

since "John the Baptist" has the same first name as "John the Beloved" I have always found it a little confusing. In John's gospel it records 5 disciples being called in the first chapters. These disciples in order are:

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of John
the "two disciples" who are Andrew and an "unnamed" disciple - John 1:37
Andrew then tells his brother Simon (or Peter) who follows Jesus - John 1:42
Jesus "finds" Philip and calls him - John 1:42
Philip then tells Nathanael (who is thought of as Bartholomew) - John 1:45

If we contrast this with the other Gospels there is a bit of a difference:

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Mark
Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew are called together - Mark 1:16
James and his brother John are called together - Mark 1:20

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Matthew (almost identical to Mark)
Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew are called together - Matthew 4:20
James and his brother John are called together - Matthew 4:22

The first Disciples called in the Gospel of Luke
Simon, James and John "left everything and followed Him" (no mention of Andrew) - Luke 5:1-11

Excellent!

In Matthew 10:2-5, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13, we see two remarkable similarities
1) The disciples were divided into three groups. The first group was led by Peter, the second by Phillip and the third by James of Alphaeus. Even though the disciples are named in different orders within their groups, leaders are always the same, Peter, Phillip and James of Alphaeus.
2) Peter, his brother Andrew, James the son of Zebedee and his broher John are always in the first group, probably because they were the most intimate of all, at least three of them (Peter, James and John). They appeared three times "alone with Jesus" in the NT (Mt. 17:1, Mt 26:37, Mk 5-37)

If we take into account this pattern, John may be "the other disciple" in the Gospel of John but James is still missing and so is Andrew in the gospel of Luke

 

[Jedidia]

Nor do I, was simply wondering how Bible scholars came up with this assumption but to me it is the "other disciple", not John even though there are strong arguments - especially those given by Damian - that it has to be John.

Have you watched the gospel of John movie? You'll notice that even in the movie, the "other disciple" is John.
Here is the video on youtube, John is with Andrew and John the Baptiste, toward the end of part 1/19 at 7:40.

Gospel Of John - The Movie Part 1 of 19 - YouTube

Yes I have that movie. One is Andrew and the other will have to remain a mystery. At 8:38 Jesus asked them what they were looking for and they said they wanted to see where His abiding place was. (greek) He said "Come and I will show you" Best part of the movie!!

 

[DamianWarS]

If we take into account this pattern, John may be "the other disciple" in the Gospel of John but James is still missing and so is Andrew in the gospel of Luke

the missing disciples may be not so inconsistent as you may think. In John's Gospel its his brother that is left out James. And in Luke's Gospel it's Peter's brother who is left out, Andrew. Luke however appears to have a very detailed account of only Peter's calling and not so much the others to such a degree that it would appear Peter was the "eyewitness" that Luke "investigated" (Luke 1:1) for this account.

So it would seem the first calling of disciples in Luke is according to Peter's testimony and the first calling of disciples in John is according to John's testimony and each of them left their brothers out. I'm guessing their brother's "call" was assumed from their own calling. Based on the other gospel accounts it would seem they were close with their brothers and work along side of them, in the case of Luke they were all in the same company and Andrew likely was an assumed member.

 

[Isatis]

the missing disciples may be not so inconsistent as you may think. In John's Gospel its his brother that is left out James. And in Luke's Gospel it's Peter's brother who is left out, Andrew. Luke however appears to have a very detailed account of only Peter's calling and not so much the others to such a degree that it would appear Peter was the "eyewitness" that Luke "investigated" (Luke 1:1) for this account.

So it would seem the first calling of disciples in Luke is according to Peter's testimony and the first calling of disciples in John is according to John's testimony and each of them left their brothers out. I'm guessing their brother's "call" was assumed from their own calling. Based on the other gospel accounts it would seem they were close with their brothers and work along side of them, in the case of Luke they were all in the same company and Andrew likely was an assumed member.

This all makes sense to me. Thank you Damian for your excellent analytical insight.

 

[ebia]

John 1:35,40
35 Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

What these verses are telling us is that one of the two disciples was Andrew. Period. We don't know who the other disciple was, do we?

Now, what I don't understand is why Bible scholars say that the other disciple was probably John himself. I mean, how did they come up with this assumption?

Any ideas?

It makes sense for it to be the beloved disciple, because that makes it the opening statement of a pair that marks the 4th gospel as the beloved disciple's testimony.

The idea that the beloved disciple is "John" has it's roots as much in very early tradition as much as internal evidence. The question is which John. Richard Bauckham makes a very strong case for John the Elder, not John son of Zebidee. Ben Witherington argues for Lazarus.

 

[GotScripture]

... what I don't understand is why Bible scholars say that the other disciple was probably John himself. I mean, how did they come up with this assumption?

They start with the false assumption that John was the author of the fourth gospel, in spite of the clear biblical evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the last chapter, the author of the fourth gospel explicitly identifies himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. So, those who begin with the belief that John was the author of the fourth gospel are led (by circular reasoning) to conclude John was the beloved disciple.

Also, we see the author of the fourth gospel referred to himself using a series of anonymous terms, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", the "other disciple", the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved", etc. So in the text we see the author finding ways to write about his participation in various events in the ministry of Jesus without naming himself. Given that this author did so in later parts of his gospel naturally leads people to conclude he may have done the same thing elsewhere in that same work. This is why many will look at this author's record of the two disciple of John the Baptist who leave to follow Jesus and conclude the second disciple (who left with Andrew to follow Jesus) is not named because this was the author himself.

While it is certainly a reasonable possibility that the author's mention of this second unnamed disciple was another anonymous self-reference, and while this would fit with the author's pattern of concealing his identity in the gospel, there isn't sufficient biblical evidence to prove one way or the other. Maybe this second unnamed disciple of John the Baptist was the author and maybe he was not. Neither idea would conflict with any other facts in the biblical record.

However, one thing is clear. Whoever the author of the fourth gospel was, he was not John. That is not possible because there are facts in the biblical record about John which are mutually exclusive with the facts that are recorded about the unnamed author of the fourth gospel. So, while the other disciple who was with Andrew that first day COULD have been the one who ended up writing the gospel, the author of the gospel could not possibly have been John. Therefore, since the unnamed author of the gospel was not John, there is absolutely no reason to think John was the unnamed disciple who the author tells us was with Andrew on that day. The idea this unnamed disciple was John is a false conclusion made by those who employ circular reasoning and after beginning with an unbiblical assumption (that John was the unnamed author of the gospel).

 

[DamianWarS]

However, one thing is clear. Whoever the author of the fourth gospel was, he was not John. That is not possible because there are facts in the biblical record about John which are mutually exclusive with the facts that are recorded about the unnamed author of the fourth gospel. So, while the other disciple who was with Andrew that first day COULD have been the one who ended up writing the gospel, the author of the gospel could not possibly have been John. Therefore, since the unnamed author of the gospel was not John, there is absolutely no reason to think John was the unnamed disciple who the author tells us was with Andrew on that day. The idea this unnamed disciple was John is a false conclusion made by those who employ circular reasoning and after beginning with an unbiblical assumption (that John was the unnamed author of the gospel).

regardless who you may think wrote the 4th gospel using the other gospels as resources it is most consistent to think of Andrew, Peter, James and John as the first disciples who are called. All gospels share similar elements in regards to the first disciples called focused around the same moment. Matthew and Mark are almost identical pairing Andrew and Peter and John and James together and called one after the other as they are fishing. Luke and John leave out some of these characters but it is clear that all gospels are talking about the same story so it would be reasonable to assume these first 4 are in all accounts whether named or not. Some accounts are more brief and others go into greater detail but with a more focus an individuals experience like in Luke with Peter or John perhaps with this unnamed disciple.

Modern view agrees that a community belonging to John wrote the gospel in a series of layers with its final forum completed at about 90 AD of a harmony of works of theology and personal experience from John but not written by John himself. This makes sense since a title like "the disciple whom Jesus loved" would be consistent among a following of an individual instead of a self given title from the individual himself which would seem a little arrogant. It supports the involvement of John as the contributing influence of the works but not the direct author himself. John is attributed as this beloved disciple for a lot of reasons from support from other gospels like I have identified, to the absence of John himself in that gospel, to a process of elimination.

Most say the gospel itself identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but this is not true and can be plainly read. The verse that is the source of this identity is John 21:24 which states "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." If you read the verse no where does it say that this disciple wrote the gospel of John but instead it says John testified to things and wrote things then it says "we know that his testimony is true". This puts the athorship on the "we" not the unnamed disciple and suggests that the gospel instead is a compiled collection of this disciple's testimonies and writings together. This would would agree with modern view that it was not John himself but instead a community that John lead and was close to. This however would still agree that the 4th gospel is still the gospel according to John but instead of direct authorship it is sourced by John's testimonies and writings compiled together as one complete gospel from bringing to end.

 

[GotScripture]

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Before I respond to your comments I would like to first ask a question. I noticed you identify yourself as a "Follower of Isa al-Masih". As I had never heard this term, I wondered who you were following and a brief search on the term turned up the following in the explanation regarding the term "Isa al-Masih":

"…in Islam, Isa al-Masih is believed to have been anointed from birth by Alläh with the specific task of being a prophet and a king… his final task will be to become leader of the Muslims. Isa will unify the Muslim Ummah (the followers of Islam) under the common purpose of worshipping Allah alone in pure Islam, thereby ending divisions and deviations by adherents. Mainstream Muslims believe that at that time Isa will dispel Christian and Jewish claims about him."

Of course, there are Arabic speaking Christians who are not Muslims. However, since you use English for the text of your post, I thought it curious that you used English to describe yourself as a "follower of" but switched to Arabic in your reference to Jesus himself. So I wanted to ask if the foregoing definition in any way reflects your own beliefs about Jesus and, if not, then may I ask what motivated you to switch from English to Arabic when referring to Jesus here?