What do you think?
Rate this book
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - The Bible v. Tradition on the beloved disciple
The Bible singles out one disciple of Jesus as the one whom "Jesus loved" and The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved takes a closer look at what scripture says about this beloved disciple and the special role he played in the life of Jesus. It searches the scriptures in order to highlight the facts in the plain text of scripture that are usually overlooked about this "other disciple, whom Jesus loved."
Although non-Bible sources may say that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," it turns out that idea cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny and the better Bible study method set forth in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved challenges the reader to weigh the testimony of scripture regarding the one whom Jesus loved and to take seriously the biblical admonition, "prove all things."
Using nothing but the Bible, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved will prove John could not have been the beloved disciple. It then goes on to present Bible facts that reveal the true identity of this other disciple and the one-of-a-kind gift from God that made him so unique. Get ready for a surprise because the answer to this mystery is in the Bible, hidden in plain sight!
Although non-Bible sources may say that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," it turns out that idea cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny and the better Bible study method set forth in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved challenges the reader to weigh the testimony of scripture regarding the one whom Jesus loved and to take seriously the biblical admonition, "prove all things."
Using nothing but the Bible, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved will prove John could not have been the beloved disciple. It then goes on to present Bible facts that reveal the true identity of this other disciple and the one-of-a-kind gift from God that made him so unique. Get ready for a surprise because the answer to this mystery is in the Bible, hidden in plain sight!
160 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
14 people are currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 7, 2022
This book is an attempt on the part of the author to show two things:
1. That the author of the fourth Gospel, who identifies himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved", could not have been the Apostle John.
2. There is a "preponderance of evidence" to suggest that the writer was in fact Lazarus, whom Jesus resurrected in chapter eleven of said Gospel.
I think Philips scores some very good points in favor of his theory, but I'm hesitant to accept unquestioningly such a novel concept when he doesn't address the external evidence for Johannine authorship (except where he spends a considerable amount of space saying that anyone who considers extra-biblical sources values traditions more than God's Word). I think it is clear that the author of the Gospel deliberately didn't name himself, and I don't think Philips' case is as conclusive as he thinks it is, so I am keeping an open mind on this one. Since the author of the fourth Gospel apparently wanted to remain anonymous (which Philips himself states on p. 18), I feel no compelling obligation to place myself on either side of this issue. Many times the hard part of studying God's Word isn't finding answers, but comprehending the questions, so I am thankful for having read this little book if only for the purpose of wrapping my mind around the questions.
I've posted my extended review below for anyone who wants a more detailed analysis of the arguments.
In making his claims, the author states from the beginning that he will not take into account any source outside the Bible, attempting to prove his points using only the Scriptures in a courtroom-style presentation of evidence. While I admire Philips' desire to take the Bible as his sole authority instead of the tradition of men, I am also wary of accepting previously unheard-of interpretations of Scripture.
I thought that Philips did a good job setting forth his evidence with clarity, but I did not find his arguments to be necessarily as conclusive as he thinks they are. While he says in chapter one that the author of the fourth Gospel "went to great lengths to hide his identity", Philips believes he has established this identity beyond reasonable doubt by analyzing only Scripture.
His first premise is built primarily on the fact that the other three Gospels record John's presence at several seemingly important events that are simply not recorded by the "disciple whom Jesus loved", and they do not mention John in the situations where the "disciple whom Jesus loved" puts himself. He doesn't consider that perhaps this is explainable if the author is writing about himself, knew that his presence at those events had been sufficiently established in the other Gospels, and simply wanted to clarify and add some details of his own presence in these other situations.
Philips presents various reasons to oppose the John theory, none of which are highly conclusive. Much of his argument against John hinges on the account of an unnamed disciple ("another disciple") in John 18:15 who went with Peter and let him into the High Priest's residence during Jesus' trial. Philips equates this "other disciple" with the "disciple whom Jesus loved" even though the text does not. Many people for many years have assumed that the OD and the DWJL are identical, as Philips does. However, it's worth noting that Scripture does not explicitly identify the OD of John 18 with the DWJL of John 13, 20, and 21.
Philips' smoking gun argument against John is that this "other disciple" in John 18 was known to the High Priest, but when the Apostle John is brought before the High Priest in Acts 4, the narrative seems to suggest that the High Priest does not recognize him. In fact, it is not quite so clear in John 18 that the unnamed disciple is the DWJL, and it is not quite so clear in Acts 4 that the High Priest does not know John. It is, nonetheless, an interesting piece of evidence. But this seems to be the argument that leads Philips to his conclusion that attributing the fourth Gospel to John makes Scripture contradict itself, a proposition that he repeats throughout his book.
Perhaps a better argument is the one Philips presents in the Appendix, which is a comparison of the belief of the DWJL in John 20:8 with the unbelief of the "eleven" in Mark 16:14. Philips takes this discrepancy to mean that the DWJL was not one of the "eleven," and it's one of his better points.
From the end of chapter 4 on, Philips presents what he calls the "preponderance of evidence" in favor of the individual whom he thinks did write the book, Lazarus. If one has already accepted as fact Philips' arguments against Johannine authorship, the arguments he brings to support Lazarus' authorship fit neatly into place. He gives numerous correlative reasons why certain actions of the DWJL would fit with the person of Lazarus. Perhaps most notable of these is Jesus' conversation with Peter on the beach in John 21, where Peter's death is prophesied, and then he asks what will become of the DWJL, who is nearby. This question makes more sense if the person in question is Lazarus, since he had already been resurrected once. There are several other similar cases where events make more sense in light of the Lazarus theory.
However, the main points of real evidence that point us to Lazarus are the facts that (1) he is called "he whom thou lovest" in John 11, (2) it is clear that Jesus greatly loved Lazarus, and (3) that he disappears from the Gospel just before the appearance of the DWJL. Philips points out "The one man associated with Jesus who was also singled out as being 'loved' by Jesus abruptly vanishes from the text [in chapter 12], and then the only disciple to be singled out as being 'loved' by Jesus abruptly appears in this same gospel [in chapter 13]." (p. 80) This is strictly true, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that these are the only two people that Jesus loved. In fact, sandwiched in between these two references is John 13:1, which says of Jesus in reference to his disciples, "...having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." It would seem that the author (the DWJL) does not think that he was the only individual that Jesus loved. It is also noteworthy that we have an entire epistle in the New Testament credited to the Apostle John (1 John) where the central theme is "love".
When taken as a whole, Philips' arguments do present a convincing argument that Lazarus could have certainly been the author of the fourth Gospel. I have no problem conceding that he has made that point well, and I would definitely not dismiss Lazarus as a possible author. However, I still have some questions that Philips didn't address.
For example: Philips bases part of his argument for Lazarus on the fact that he would have had motive to hide his identity (John 12 says that the authorities wanted to kill Lazarus again after his resurrection). But if this is the case, why would Lazarus clearly refer to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved" almost immediately after calling himself "he whom thou lovest" in John 11? In other words, if the author really "went to great lengths to hide his identity" (p. 18), why did he identify himself as the DWJL and use almost the same title for Lazarus?
Furthermore, Philips only takes the Bible into account as a source, even after admitting that he thinks the author deliberately remained anonymous in Scripture. The extra-biblical evidence for Johannine authorship is unambiguous: Irenaeus, around 180 BC, is quoted as saying "Then [after the publication of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke] John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John personally. Irenaeus says, "I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse...also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance." (https://isjesusalive.com/ancient-sour...) It seems highly unlikely that Irenaeus would have mis-attributed the fourth Gospel to the apostle whom his teacher knew personally, and there is no way Polycarp would have thought John wrote it if he didn't, unless John lied to him.
Philips does not want to consider any of this outside evidence in his study, exhibiting an admirable devotion to the sufficiency of Scripture. However, this is curious in light of his initial supposition that the author deliberately did not reveal himself in Scripture. He believes that the author can be identified by a courtroom-esque trial of the facts, but to disregard any external testimony seems like throwing good testimony out of the courtroom.
1. That the author of the fourth Gospel, who identifies himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved", could not have been the Apostle John.
2. There is a "preponderance of evidence" to suggest that the writer was in fact Lazarus, whom Jesus resurrected in chapter eleven of said Gospel.
I think Philips scores some very good points in favor of his theory, but I'm hesitant to accept unquestioningly such a novel concept when he doesn't address the external evidence for Johannine authorship (except where he spends a considerable amount of space saying that anyone who considers extra-biblical sources values traditions more than God's Word). I think it is clear that the author of the Gospel deliberately didn't name himself, and I don't think Philips' case is as conclusive as he thinks it is, so I am keeping an open mind on this one. Since the author of the fourth Gospel apparently wanted to remain anonymous (which Philips himself states on p. 18), I feel no compelling obligation to place myself on either side of this issue. Many times the hard part of studying God's Word isn't finding answers, but comprehending the questions, so I am thankful for having read this little book if only for the purpose of wrapping my mind around the questions.
I've posted my extended review below for anyone who wants a more detailed analysis of the arguments.
In making his claims, the author states from the beginning that he will not take into account any source outside the Bible, attempting to prove his points using only the Scriptures in a courtroom-style presentation of evidence. While I admire Philips' desire to take the Bible as his sole authority instead of the tradition of men, I am also wary of accepting previously unheard-of interpretations of Scripture.
I thought that Philips did a good job setting forth his evidence with clarity, but I did not find his arguments to be necessarily as conclusive as he thinks they are. While he says in chapter one that the author of the fourth Gospel "went to great lengths to hide his identity", Philips believes he has established this identity beyond reasonable doubt by analyzing only Scripture.
His first premise is built primarily on the fact that the other three Gospels record John's presence at several seemingly important events that are simply not recorded by the "disciple whom Jesus loved", and they do not mention John in the situations where the "disciple whom Jesus loved" puts himself. He doesn't consider that perhaps this is explainable if the author is writing about himself, knew that his presence at those events had been sufficiently established in the other Gospels, and simply wanted to clarify and add some details of his own presence in these other situations.
Philips presents various reasons to oppose the John theory, none of which are highly conclusive. Much of his argument against John hinges on the account of an unnamed disciple ("another disciple") in John 18:15 who went with Peter and let him into the High Priest's residence during Jesus' trial. Philips equates this "other disciple" with the "disciple whom Jesus loved" even though the text does not. Many people for many years have assumed that the OD and the DWJL are identical, as Philips does. However, it's worth noting that Scripture does not explicitly identify the OD of John 18 with the DWJL of John 13, 20, and 21.
Philips' smoking gun argument against John is that this "other disciple" in John 18 was known to the High Priest, but when the Apostle John is brought before the High Priest in Acts 4, the narrative seems to suggest that the High Priest does not recognize him. In fact, it is not quite so clear in John 18 that the unnamed disciple is the DWJL, and it is not quite so clear in Acts 4 that the High Priest does not know John. It is, nonetheless, an interesting piece of evidence. But this seems to be the argument that leads Philips to his conclusion that attributing the fourth Gospel to John makes Scripture contradict itself, a proposition that he repeats throughout his book.
Perhaps a better argument is the one Philips presents in the Appendix, which is a comparison of the belief of the DWJL in John 20:8 with the unbelief of the "eleven" in Mark 16:14. Philips takes this discrepancy to mean that the DWJL was not one of the "eleven," and it's one of his better points.
From the end of chapter 4 on, Philips presents what he calls the "preponderance of evidence" in favor of the individual whom he thinks did write the book, Lazarus. If one has already accepted as fact Philips' arguments against Johannine authorship, the arguments he brings to support Lazarus' authorship fit neatly into place. He gives numerous correlative reasons why certain actions of the DWJL would fit with the person of Lazarus. Perhaps most notable of these is Jesus' conversation with Peter on the beach in John 21, where Peter's death is prophesied, and then he asks what will become of the DWJL, who is nearby. This question makes more sense if the person in question is Lazarus, since he had already been resurrected once. There are several other similar cases where events make more sense in light of the Lazarus theory.
However, the main points of real evidence that point us to Lazarus are the facts that (1) he is called "he whom thou lovest" in John 11, (2) it is clear that Jesus greatly loved Lazarus, and (3) that he disappears from the Gospel just before the appearance of the DWJL. Philips points out "The one man associated with Jesus who was also singled out as being 'loved' by Jesus abruptly vanishes from the text [in chapter 12], and then the only disciple to be singled out as being 'loved' by Jesus abruptly appears in this same gospel [in chapter 13]." (p. 80) This is strictly true, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that these are the only two people that Jesus loved. In fact, sandwiched in between these two references is John 13:1, which says of Jesus in reference to his disciples, "...having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." It would seem that the author (the DWJL) does not think that he was the only individual that Jesus loved. It is also noteworthy that we have an entire epistle in the New Testament credited to the Apostle John (1 John) where the central theme is "love".
When taken as a whole, Philips' arguments do present a convincing argument that Lazarus could have certainly been the author of the fourth Gospel. I have no problem conceding that he has made that point well, and I would definitely not dismiss Lazarus as a possible author. However, I still have some questions that Philips didn't address.
For example: Philips bases part of his argument for Lazarus on the fact that he would have had motive to hide his identity (John 12 says that the authorities wanted to kill Lazarus again after his resurrection). But if this is the case, why would Lazarus clearly refer to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved" almost immediately after calling himself "he whom thou lovest" in John 11? In other words, if the author really "went to great lengths to hide his identity" (p. 18), why did he identify himself as the DWJL and use almost the same title for Lazarus?
Furthermore, Philips only takes the Bible into account as a source, even after admitting that he thinks the author deliberately remained anonymous in Scripture. The extra-biblical evidence for Johannine authorship is unambiguous: Irenaeus, around 180 BC, is quoted as saying "Then [after the publication of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke] John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John personally. Irenaeus says, "I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse...also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance." (https://isjesusalive.com/ancient-sour...) It seems highly unlikely that Irenaeus would have mis-attributed the fourth Gospel to the apostle whom his teacher knew personally, and there is no way Polycarp would have thought John wrote it if he didn't, unless John lied to him.
Philips does not want to consider any of this outside evidence in his study, exhibiting an admirable devotion to the sufficiency of Scripture. However, this is curious in light of his initial supposition that the author deliberately did not reveal himself in Scripture. He believes that the author can be identified by a courtroom-esque trial of the facts, but to disregard any external testimony seems like throwing good testimony out of the courtroom.
February 13, 2022
This is a very thought-provoking book. The author uses only scripture to lay out his supposition that the fourth gospel might not have been written by John as we have traditionally been taught. While it cannot be definitively be proven who the actual author was, the author's arguments are reasonable and compelling. This book made me examine scripture in a fresh way and made me consider what is church tradition versus what is said or left unsaid in the Bible.
October 14, 2014
We can't say for sure John was the beloved disciple since his name isn't given, but one thing is certain: Lazarus is the one who cannot be the beloved disciple.
I admit that first I've considered the hypothesis of Lazarus being the beloved disciple, after reading Mr. Witherington blog about this subject. His theories seemed logic and interesting. He was very persuasive. But, at the same time, I felt something wasn't totally right. And each time I began to feel doubts about the true authorship, it was when something called the attention me when I read the gospels. Reading opinions from others can be dangerous. It's the same for other "candidates", such as John Mark, Judas, Thomas or even Magadalene. Also,as Mr. Köstenberger said, how can reputable scholars dealing with the same evidence come to such drastically different conclusions?
Back to the arguments to the author of this book:
The author of the fourth gospel is an eyewitness. So he was present in all the events he told.
Pay attention to these verses:
"So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit " "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."(John 20:23)
An Apostle is someone God has sent out to spread the word. As you can see Jesus uses this word. This means he was talking to the twelve apostles.
This verse can be read in parallel with this one from Mark:
"Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." "(Mark 16: 14-18)
The Gospel of John says Thomas wasn't with them:
"Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came." (John 20:24)
And you can see Mark stated the eleven where reunited. Lazarus wasn't even one of the twelve. Scripture also shows only the twelve were at the last supper. The beloved disciple was at the last supper. This rules Lazarus out, too.
"When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve" (Matthew 26:20)
"When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, truly I tell you, one of you will betray me--one who is eating with me. They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely you don't mean me?" It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. " (Mark 14:17)
"When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table." (Luke 22:14)
Some people argue that maybe there were more people at the upper room, but when Jesus and the apostles were surrounded with more people, the scripture states it.
"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles." (Luke 24:10)
Another important point is in John 21. This chapter shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman. He was among the seven who gone fishing in the Sea of Galilee. The miraculous catching of fish is very similar to this one:
"When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners. (Luke 5:1-11)
Maybe the disciple whom Jesus loved remembered the first miraculous catch of fish?
This is also an answer to these who like to argue the author of the fourth gospel cannot be a simple Galilean fisherman. The scripture shows Zebedee had boats and servants; he and maybe Peter and others had money. Also, because the Sea of Galilee was rich in fish, not everyone could be a fisherman. For this reason, the fishery licenses were very expensive.
Mr. Philips says that since the raising of the Jairu's daughter, and the transfiguration isn't in the fourth gospel, John couldn't have written it. Really?
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)
Yes, Lazarus is called the disciple whom Jesus loved, but that part of the scripture says Jesus loved also Mary and Martha. And why Lazarus name would disappear, since it would be so obvious? Many people uses this as an argument, like the rich young ruler, since Jesus "loved him".
So, it's ironic how Mr. Philips states John absolutely cannot be the author of the fourth gospel when the evidence rules out Lazarus. We cannot say for sure it was John, but at least there are chances to him.
For these who came across of the modern scholars theories, think by yourself. Read the scripture and don't be persuaded by others. Many of the people who accept such theories are these who only love to hear a different story. I've even heard about people who thinks that seeing John as the disciple whom Jesus loved is "unglamorous". Because to them the scholars theories are "refreshing".
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
A final note to Mr. Phillips: It doesn't seem right to write your own review on amazon. It's hardly an unbiased review.
I admit that first I've considered the hypothesis of Lazarus being the beloved disciple, after reading Mr. Witherington blog about this subject. His theories seemed logic and interesting. He was very persuasive. But, at the same time, I felt something wasn't totally right. And each time I began to feel doubts about the true authorship, it was when something called the attention me when I read the gospels. Reading opinions from others can be dangerous. It's the same for other "candidates", such as John Mark, Judas, Thomas or even Magadalene. Also,as Mr. Köstenberger said, how can reputable scholars dealing with the same evidence come to such drastically different conclusions?
Back to the arguments to the author of this book:
The author of the fourth gospel is an eyewitness. So he was present in all the events he told.
Pay attention to these verses:
"So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit " "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."(John 20:23)
An Apostle is someone God has sent out to spread the word. As you can see Jesus uses this word. This means he was talking to the twelve apostles.
This verse can be read in parallel with this one from Mark:
"Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." "(Mark 16: 14-18)
The Gospel of John says Thomas wasn't with them:
"Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came." (John 20:24)
And you can see Mark stated the eleven where reunited. Lazarus wasn't even one of the twelve. Scripture also shows only the twelve were at the last supper. The beloved disciple was at the last supper. This rules Lazarus out, too.
"When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve" (Matthew 26:20)
"When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, truly I tell you, one of you will betray me--one who is eating with me. They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely you don't mean me?" It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. " (Mark 14:17)
"When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table." (Luke 22:14)
Some people argue that maybe there were more people at the upper room, but when Jesus and the apostles were surrounded with more people, the scripture states it.
"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles." (Luke 24:10)
Another important point is in John 21. This chapter shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman. He was among the seven who gone fishing in the Sea of Galilee. The miraculous catching of fish is very similar to this one:
"When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners. (Luke 5:1-11)
Maybe the disciple whom Jesus loved remembered the first miraculous catch of fish?
This is also an answer to these who like to argue the author of the fourth gospel cannot be a simple Galilean fisherman. The scripture shows Zebedee had boats and servants; he and maybe Peter and others had money. Also, because the Sea of Galilee was rich in fish, not everyone could be a fisherman. For this reason, the fishery licenses were very expensive.
Mr. Philips says that since the raising of the Jairu's daughter, and the transfiguration isn't in the fourth gospel, John couldn't have written it. Really?
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)
Yes, Lazarus is called the disciple whom Jesus loved, but that part of the scripture says Jesus loved also Mary and Martha. And why Lazarus name would disappear, since it would be so obvious? Many people uses this as an argument, like the rich young ruler, since Jesus "loved him".
So, it's ironic how Mr. Philips states John absolutely cannot be the author of the fourth gospel when the evidence rules out Lazarus. We cannot say for sure it was John, but at least there are chances to him.
For these who came across of the modern scholars theories, think by yourself. Read the scripture and don't be persuaded by others. Many of the people who accept such theories are these who only love to hear a different story. I've even heard about people who thinks that seeing John as the disciple whom Jesus loved is "unglamorous". Because to them the scholars theories are "refreshing".
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
A final note to Mr. Phillips: It doesn't seem right to write your own review on amazon. It's hardly an unbiased review.
July 15, 2012
I usually steer clear of books that debate or discuss theology, and I can't really remember why I selected this one (although I have a hunch that the selection of review books on offer was not inspiring, and this may have been the best available). This book basically argues that the fourth gospel was actually written by Lazarus, not John, and that Lazarus was therefore the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’.
I am sceptical of any author who claims to bring a new interpretation of the Bible. After all, there is a long tradition of this - Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy spring to mind – and these new interpretations generally contradict mainstream Christian theology. If John really didn’t write the fourth gospel, why has this ‘error’ persisted? And what difference does it make to the central truths of the Christian message?
If I had read to the end of the book, I might be able to answer these questions. But I didn’t, partly because I felt there were gaps in the author’s logic. As an example, one of the author’s early pieces of ‘evidence’ is that when John is referred to by Jesus in the other three gospels, it is as one of the ‘sons of thunder’, which contradicts the idea that John didn’t name himself as the author of the gospel because he was too humble. The fourth gospel was not (obviously) written during Jesus' lifetime, and one of the central beliefs of Christianity is the power of God to change hearts and minds, as He did with Saul/Paul. Is it too much to believe that John, son of thunder, could have learned humility later in life? Equally, it is possible that John was always a humble man and that the ‘son of thunder’ refers to his father, Zebedee, as being like thunder.
However, the main reason I couldn’t finish the book was that in reading it, I felt what can only be described as a check in my spirit, the feeling I get when something is wrong.
So, I stopped reading, and went to look at the other reviews on Amazon. There were a lot of five-star reviews, including one by the author (which is a big no-no on Amazon), and the author was refuting some of the one-star reviews (which, in my opinion, is another no-no). Many of the five-star reviews have an unusually large number of ‘helpful’ votes, the reviewers have no other reviews (which is often the sign of a fake review), and several of these reviewers referred to themselves as ‘Bereans’, making me wonder who the Bereans are.
Out of curiosity, I Googled the term. Apparently, there are two separate Berean denominations. One, the Berean Fellowship, appears to be a Baptist denomination.
But this is not the one that the author is aligned with. Instead, it appears that he is a Berean Christadelphian. Christadelphians seem to place the teachings of two early leaders ahead of the teachings of the Bible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_C...) and may reject the doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereans, although this is contradicted by http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/...). Phillips appears to be a Berean Christadephian, placing the Bible above the teachings of the early leaders, but I am not convinced that this author represents mainstream Christian thinking, so would not recommend this book.
Thanks to BookCrash for providing a free ebook for review.
I am sceptical of any author who claims to bring a new interpretation of the Bible. After all, there is a long tradition of this - Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy spring to mind – and these new interpretations generally contradict mainstream Christian theology. If John really didn’t write the fourth gospel, why has this ‘error’ persisted? And what difference does it make to the central truths of the Christian message?
If I had read to the end of the book, I might be able to answer these questions. But I didn’t, partly because I felt there were gaps in the author’s logic. As an example, one of the author’s early pieces of ‘evidence’ is that when John is referred to by Jesus in the other three gospels, it is as one of the ‘sons of thunder’, which contradicts the idea that John didn’t name himself as the author of the gospel because he was too humble. The fourth gospel was not (obviously) written during Jesus' lifetime, and one of the central beliefs of Christianity is the power of God to change hearts and minds, as He did with Saul/Paul. Is it too much to believe that John, son of thunder, could have learned humility later in life? Equally, it is possible that John was always a humble man and that the ‘son of thunder’ refers to his father, Zebedee, as being like thunder.
However, the main reason I couldn’t finish the book was that in reading it, I felt what can only be described as a check in my spirit, the feeling I get when something is wrong.
So, I stopped reading, and went to look at the other reviews on Amazon. There were a lot of five-star reviews, including one by the author (which is a big no-no on Amazon), and the author was refuting some of the one-star reviews (which, in my opinion, is another no-no). Many of the five-star reviews have an unusually large number of ‘helpful’ votes, the reviewers have no other reviews (which is often the sign of a fake review), and several of these reviewers referred to themselves as ‘Bereans’, making me wonder who the Bereans are.
Out of curiosity, I Googled the term. Apparently, there are two separate Berean denominations. One, the Berean Fellowship, appears to be a Baptist denomination.
But this is not the one that the author is aligned with. Instead, it appears that he is a Berean Christadelphian. Christadelphians seem to place the teachings of two early leaders ahead of the teachings of the Bible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_C...) and may reject the doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereans, although this is contradicted by http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/...). Phillips appears to be a Berean Christadephian, placing the Bible above the teachings of the early leaders, but I am not convinced that this author represents mainstream Christian thinking, so would not recommend this book.
Thanks to BookCrash for providing a free ebook for review.
May 15, 2013
I'm giving this book a high rating because it made me think, and think hard. I just finished a Bible study of John, and after reading this book I was forced to go back through and reread the entire gospel with the point of view that this unnamed disciple was not John. Many passages in John become much clearer using this perspective.
The Lazarus theory harmonizes with the other gospels as well. The key parts for me were the following two facts: 1) Acts 4:13 clearly states that "John and Peter" were not known to the high priest, yet John 18:15-16 clearly states that the "other unnamed disciple" was known by the high priest. The Bible cannot contradict itself, so this proves by scripture that John was not the "unnamed disciple." 2) The unnamed disciple "believed" first. He believed as soon as he saw the folded linens, whereas the eleven believed not until they saw Christ (Mark 16:14). Therefore scripture again shows that the unnamed disciple could not have been John.
Some of those who gave one-star used arguments that Lazarus wasn't a fisherman. This is sheer silliness. I'm not a fisherman, in fact I hate fish, but I have been on a fishing boat with my friends. Just because the "unnamed disciple" was on the fishing boat at the end of the gospel doesn't infer that he had to be a fisherman. There were five named apostles on that boat: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, and John, _and_ two other unnamed disciples. I believe the preponderance of evidence will show that this could very likely be Lazarus.
One final note: relying on church tradition is precarious. A read of the book titled "Modern Bible Translations Unmasked" by Russell and Colin Standish should clearly give you a glimpse as to the reasons behind the protestant reformation and what the "church" is willing to do to the Word of God in order to uphold its pagan-influenced doctrine.
Read my book: The Omega Gambit - http://sites.google.com/site/theomega...
The Lazarus theory harmonizes with the other gospels as well. The key parts for me were the following two facts: 1) Acts 4:13 clearly states that "John and Peter" were not known to the high priest, yet John 18:15-16 clearly states that the "other unnamed disciple" was known by the high priest. The Bible cannot contradict itself, so this proves by scripture that John was not the "unnamed disciple." 2) The unnamed disciple "believed" first. He believed as soon as he saw the folded linens, whereas the eleven believed not until they saw Christ (Mark 16:14). Therefore scripture again shows that the unnamed disciple could not have been John.
Some of those who gave one-star used arguments that Lazarus wasn't a fisherman. This is sheer silliness. I'm not a fisherman, in fact I hate fish, but I have been on a fishing boat with my friends. Just because the "unnamed disciple" was on the fishing boat at the end of the gospel doesn't infer that he had to be a fisherman. There were five named apostles on that boat: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, and John, _and_ two other unnamed disciples. I believe the preponderance of evidence will show that this could very likely be Lazarus.
One final note: relying on church tradition is precarious. A read of the book titled "Modern Bible Translations Unmasked" by Russell and Colin Standish should clearly give you a glimpse as to the reasons behind the protestant reformation and what the "church" is willing to do to the Word of God in order to uphold its pagan-influenced doctrine.
Read my book: The Omega Gambit - http://sites.google.com/site/theomega...
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews