Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by deacon blues » Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:45 am

My TBM sister and her husband are traveling in Turkey this week, Ephesus in particular. They visited famous Saint John's Basilica, where legend has it, John the beloved and/or the apostle was buried. Of course TBM's know that John was never buried but was translated, as D&C 7 explains. I think my sister is part of a tour with a TBM guide. I'm just thinking about some possible discussions they might be having about the fate of John the beloved and/or apostle. Has anyone ever heard faith promoting (or not) stories about this uniquely LDS view?
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 4074
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by moksha » Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:16 am

I found this at the Encyclopedia Britannica:
John’s subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend. At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John’s tomb is at Ephesus, identifies him with the beloved disciple, and adds that he “was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.” That John died in Ephesus is also stated by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon circa 180 CE, who says John wrote his Gospel and letters at Ephesus and Revelation at Pátmos. During the 3rd century two rival sites at Ephesus claimed the honour of being the apostle’s grave. One eventually achieved official recognition, becoming a shrine in the 4th century.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3183
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by wtfluff » Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am

moksha wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:16 am
I found this at the Encyclopedia Britannica:
John’s subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend. At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John’s tomb is at Ephesus, identifies him with the beloved disciple, and adds that he “was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.” That John died in Ephesus is also stated by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon circa 180 CE, who says John wrote his Gospel and letters at Ephesus and Revelation at Pátmos. During the 3rd century two rival sites at Ephesus claimed the honour of being the apostle’s grave. One eventually achieved official recognition, becoming a shrine in the 4th century.
The penguin brings up the first question that came to mind when wondering if Mr. Beloved was buried:

What sort of evidence is there that John The Beloved was actually a real person? (No: Neither the bible, mor the D&C can be considered evidence.)
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

The Beauty of Gray

User avatar
stealthbishop
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:25 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by stealthbishop » Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:11 pm

wtfluff wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am
moksha wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:16 am
I found this at the Encyclopedia Britannica:
John’s subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend. At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John’s tomb is at Ephesus, identifies him with the beloved disciple, and adds that he “was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.” That John died in Ephesus is also stated by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon circa 180 CE, who says John wrote his Gospel and letters at Ephesus and Revelation at Pátmos. During the 3rd century two rival sites at Ephesus claimed the honour of being the apostle’s grave. One eventually achieved official recognition, becoming a shrine in the 4th century.
The penguin brings up the first question that came to mind when wondering if Mr. Beloved was buried:

What sort of evidence is there that John The Beloved was actually a real person? (No: Neither the bible, mor the D&C can be considered evidence.)
Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that it's historical or that it is entirely fiction. It must go through a process of critical analysis to filter legend from plausible history. Reputable secular scholars of early Christianity (such as Bart Ehrman) do not dismiss the entire Bible out of hand even though there are indeed serious historical issues with the Bible clearly.

The best evidence for a historical John is that 99.99% of biblical scholars believe that the Epistle to the Galatians is an undisputed letter from Paul and that Paul is indeed a historical person. In that letter, Paul says that he has met in person with James the brother of Jesus, and Peter in Jerusalem. He says that James, Peter and John are "the pillars of the church" there but he did not see John (meaning that John exists but was away at the time). It's not a slam dunk but definitely makes it plausible for most secular scholars.

OTOH, most secular scholars of early Christianity believe that John the Beloved did not write the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John nor the Book of Revelation. They believe him to be, like the historical Peter, most likely illiterate for the most part.
"Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess"

-Depeche Mode

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by Palerider » Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:19 pm

stealthbishop wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:11 pm

Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that it's historical or that it is entirely fiction. It must go through a process of critical analysis to filter legend from plausible history. Reputable secular scholars of early Christianity (such as Bart Ehrman) do not dismiss the entire Bible out of hand even though there are indeed serious historical issues with the Bible clearly.

The best evidence for a historical John is that 99.99% of biblical scholars believe that the Epistle to the Galatians is an undisputed letter from Paul and that Paul is indeed a historical person. In that letter, Paul says that he has met in person with James the brother of Jesus, and Peter in Jerusalem. He says that James, Peter and John are "the pillars of the church" there but he did not see John (meaning that John exists but was away at the time). It's not a slam dunk but definitely makes it plausible for most secular scholars.

OTOH, most secular scholars of early Christianity believe that John the Beloved did not write the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John nor the Book of Revelation. They believe him to be, like the historical Peter, most likely illiterate for the most part.
Well researched and thought out response.

I'm just wondering however, if being illiterate would have stopped someone like Peter or John from having a scribe write their story as they recollected it or dictated it to the scribe. Could this have been a relatively common practice?

Almost like an authorized biography?

ETA:

As an example, I believe Tertius served as a scribe for Paul's dictation of Romans. See Romans 16:22.
I believe this dictating was more common than people now realize.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Cnsl1
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by Cnsl1 » Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:25 pm

Regarding John (and the 3 Nephites) never tasting death, is there any mythology or stories from other religious writers about John (or others) to continue to roam the earth saving souls, or was this an original thought by Joseph Smith?

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3183
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by wtfluff » Tue Nov 02, 2021 10:14 am

stealthbishop wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:11 pm
wtfluff wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am
The penguin brings up the first question that came to mind when wondering if Mr. Beloved was buried:

What sort of evidence is there that John The Beloved was actually a real person? (No: Neither the bible, mor the D&C can be considered evidence.)
Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that it's historical or that it is entirely fiction. It must go through a process of critical analysis to filter legend from plausible history. Reputable secular scholars of early Christianity (such as Bart Ehrman) do not dismiss the entire Bible out of hand even though there are indeed serious historical issues with the Bible clearly.
To quote Mr. Ehrman himself (paraphrased:) "There are more differences between the manuscripts used to produce the new testament, than there are words in the new testament."

Maybe I could have worded my last sentence better and typed: Is there evidence "besides" the bible and the D&C that might lead us to believe that John The Beloved was actually a real person?
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

The Beauty of Gray

User avatar
stealthbishop
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:25 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by stealthbishop » Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:50 am

Palerider wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:19 pm


Well researched and thought out response.

I'm just wondering however, if being illiterate would have stopped someone like Peter or John from having a scribe write their story as they recollected it or dictated it to the scribe. Could this have been a relatively common practice?

Almost like an authorized biography?

ETA:

As an example, I believe Tertius served as a scribe for Paul's dictation of Romans. See Romans 16:22.
I believe this dictating was more common than people now realize.
Your example shows that scribes can be used but there is a pattern that Paul follows when he is using a scribe that is contextual. He announces it in the Epistle! That doesn't happen with any of the gospels. They are anonymous authors where only much later they are given names to distinguish them from each other, add credibility, and filter out what are seen as heretical gospels. Epistles of John do not show any evidence of using a scribe (it's possible but there is no evidence). The Book of Revelation does identify the author as "John" but he doesn't specify (probably on purpose). John is not an uncommon name during that time period so he could be anybody.

People who are more devout Christians definitely use the scribe argument for people such as Peter and John but there just isn't a lot of hard evidence that they did employ it. The Book of Acts does make the accusation that these people at ground zero (like Peter and John) were illiterate which fits with the stats of literacy in late antiquity and especially in the region of Galilee. So that tradition has contextual credibility.
"Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess"

-Depeche Mode

User avatar
stealthbishop
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:25 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by stealthbishop » Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:04 am

wtfluff wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 10:14 am
stealthbishop wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:11 pm
wtfluff wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am
The penguin brings up the first question that came to mind when wondering if Mr. Beloved was buried:

What sort of evidence is there that John The Beloved was actually a real person? (No: Neither the bible, mor the D&C can be considered evidence.)
Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that it's historical or that it is entirely fiction. It must go through a process of critical analysis to filter legend from plausible history. Reputable secular scholars of early Christianity (such as Bart Ehrman) do not dismiss the entire Bible out of hand even though there are indeed serious historical issues with the Bible clearly.
To quote Mr. Ehrman himself (paraphrased:) "There are more differences between the manuscripts used to produce the new testament, than there are words in the new testament."

Maybe I could have worded my last sentence better and typed: Is there evidence "besides" the bible and the D&C that might lead us to believe that John The Beloved was actually a real person?
He would also say that most of those differences are spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and general carelessness on the part of scribes. It's not easy work! But some differences he says are big changes (see his book Misquoting Jesus). (One significant one that I'm learning about is the sweating of blood in Luke. That appears to be an interpolation and serious change made by a scribe to ramp up the suffering of Jesus in that gospel when the rest of it the author is really trying hard to dampen it in comparison with Mark).

Bart uses Galatians a lot in his framework for the historical Jesus. He says the people who are mythicists (believe that Jesus is just a myth) don't have a leg to stand on and he cites Galatians a lot)

But you are right, in order for there to be higher probability there should be independent/multiple attestation. With Jesus there is outside the bible. Josephus mentions him and there are a few other sources outside the Bible for Jesus. With John, there isn't (that I know of and I have looked) but there is multiple attestation within the Bible because there are different sources. The synoptic Gospels and Gospel of John are considered different sources. Paul's letters are a different source. Bart and other scholars of early Christianity see it that way.

So yes, the answer to your question to my knowledge, is that there are no credible sources outside the bible that recognize a historical John. But then again, this lack of evidence is the case with MANY notable historical figures that lived earlier or later than Jesus, John and Peter such as Alexander the Great as Bart Ehrman says.
"Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess"

-Depeche Mode

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by Hagoth » Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:53 am

Of course, the name John was attached later to that gospel by a community that believed the author to be the apostle John. The actual author never makes that claim. An interesting hypothesis I came across recently suggests that not only was the the one whom Jesus loved not John, but might not have even been a man. Women played a huge role in earliest Christianity. By the time of the Pauline letters that was already in the process of being squashed. Even more so by the time of the gospels. It was noticed, however, by some of the early critics of Christianity.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
stealthbishop
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:25 am

Re: Where was John the beloved buried? Or was he not buried?

Post by stealthbishop » Mon Nov 08, 2021 2:34 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:53 am
Of course, the name John was attached later to that gospel by a community that believed the author to be the apostle John. The actual author never makes that claim. An interesting hypothesis I came across recently suggests that not only was the the one whom Jesus loved not John, but might not have even been a man. Women played a huge role in earliest Christianity. By the time of the Pauline letters that was already in the process of being squashed. Even more so by the time of the gospels. It was noticed, however, by some of the early critics of Christianity.
Agreed.

Very early Christianity and the message of the historic Jesus was very egalitarian because it was apocalyptic which meant that the current age was controlled by Satan and demons and they were behind the curtain and causing oppression of the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled, women and children. But God was going to intervene and set things right and send a cosmic judge or a powerful messiah to bring in a new kingdom that had justice and equity. These messages resonated with many women. So women were often leaders in the early house churches. Paul was also of the same belief in equity of men and women and most reputable scholars believe that any reference that he makes about women in a non-egalitarian manner is likely an interpolation by scribes or a forgery. For instance, most reputable scholars know the "pastoral epistles" of Timothy and Titus are not written by Paul at all even though they are attributed to him. They are likely forgeries. They clearly are meant to combat any message of equality of men and women and promote the Roman/Greek culture of male superiority among other things.
"Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess"

-Depeche Mode

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests