Originally posted by Seasanctuary
I'd like to get comments on the specific arguments advanced by Mr. Jusino.
It's speculative. That's not a very specific comment, I know. But having skimmed through his article, I don't see that one can come to a better conclusion.
At least he didn't cite Barbara Thiering. Or did he (I did skim it, after all)?
But who is the Beloved Disciple?
I don't have any great difficulty with John being the author of the Gospel of John. In fact, in the absence of any more compelling arguments, I tend to think that John was the author, at least of the bulk of the material, if not of its final form. I've rambled on this topic before, so I'll adapt those ramblings...
Bultmann stated that “the Gospel itself makes no claim to have been written by an eyewitness.” This does, of course, overlook
John 21.24, which expressly states that the gospel was written by an eyewitness. In the passage, the Beloved Disciple has “written down” these things.
The passage is the one clear example of redaction in the Fourth Gospel. The “we” in 21.24 is a separate person from the Beloved Disciple who wrote the Gospel/(the Epilogue?) down. The word for “written” means to physically write – or at least through an amanuensis.
The Epilogue is widely considered to be entirely a redactional addition. If this is so, then it indicates that the community believed that the original writer of the tradition, the Beloved Disciple, was an intimate disciple and eyewitness of Jesus on earth. Could still be Mary M at this stage ...
It is possible that each reference in the Fourth Gospel, to the Beloved Disciple, is a later interpolation. The motivation for doing so may be to legitimate the Gospel, and the community, through apostolic witness. However, the “rumour” which spread in the community, that the Beloved Disciple would not die before the Parousia, speaks against such a view. If the disciple has now died, the redactors would want to explain such a rumour. If the rumour could be started, there must have been the possibility that the Beloved Disciple had spoken with Jesus – i.e. s/he was a first generation disciple. The Redactors would have no motivation to fabricate such a rumour, in order to explain it. Therefore, the Beloved Disciple had a widespread regard in the community as a close associate of Jesus, and a bearer of tradition.
In addition, in 19.35 we are told that the one who saw Jesus’ side being pierced had given testimony, and his testimony was true. Although the witness is not identified, in 19.26-27, the Beloved Disciple is shown to have been present at the foot of the cross.
External Evidence
The external evidence identifies John, the Son of Zebedee, as author.
Irenaeus, in
Adv Haer 3.11 claimed to have information from Papias that John the disciple was the Gospel’s author. Irenaeus reports that he lived until Trajan (AD 98-117). He places John at Ephesus, from information received via the “elders” in Asia Minor, especially Polycarp. The influence of John in Asia Minor is perhaps shown by Tatian using John’s chronology in AD 170. Appollinaris of Hierapolis, Asia Minor, attacked ignorant Christians who claimed that Jesus ate Passover on 14 Nisan, in support of John: “this is how Matthew describes it. But the Gospels seem to contradict them”. In the Paschal dispute, John was seen to support the Quartodeciman custom in Asia Minor.
Papias of Hierapolis collected traditions from the “elders” (AD 125-135), distinguishing between John son of Zebedee and an elder John – each at Ephesus. He wrote: “…the words of the elders - what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say...” It has been suggested, by modern-day critics only, that the two Johns may have been confused as authors of the Fourth Gospel.
Internal Evidence
There's the Beloved Disciple references and the other references mentioned above. But also, Hengel notes that the title of the Gospel, “evangelion kata Ioannen” was included in the final redaction of the Gospel, and is therefore ancient. Both P66 and P75 have the inscriptio.
The Beloved Disciple
The Beloved Disciple only appears, by that title, on Jesus’ last day. There are other references to anonymous disciples, which may or may not refer to the same disciple:
- 1.37-42 Two disciples of John the Baptist follow Jesus – one is Andrew, the other is unnamed.
- 18.15-16 Peter and another disciple follow Jesus to the courtyard of the high priest. The other disciple, absent from the 3 Synoptics, is known to the high priest, and gets Peter into the courtyard.
Identity?
It is difficult to know why the eyewitness would refer to himself, immodestly, as the recipient of special love from Jesus. This is especially so, if the reason for anonymity was modesty. It is suggested plausibly by Brown that the eyewitness disciple referred to himself simply as “the other disciple”, and that it was his own followers who referred to him as the Beloved Disciple. One may go further and suggest, like H Thyen, that all of the Beloved Disciple passages were altered by the editor of chapter 21; that the original gospel did not mention the “Beloved Disciple” at all. Although, as discussed above in relation to the “rumour”, a complete interpolation seems unlikely.
The role of the Beloved Disciple is centred on the community’s understanding of itself as being in direct continuity with the Jesus of history. The Beloved Disciple is the authority and witness to the tradition. From 1.14, the community (“we”) is a joint-witness, through the Beloved Disciple, to the glory of Jesus. I'm wondering what authority Mary Magdalene would have in this regard. Probably not a lot. The Beloved Disciple is a man. And one of the 12.
It is true that the Beloved Disciple is deliberately contrasted with Peter in the above passages (and perhaps in 18.15-16). The comparison is usually favourable. He is more intimate with Jesus (reclining next to him, in his bosom), and receives special information; he is the first to the empty tomb, and the first to believe in the risen Son of Man; he is the first to recognise Jesus from the fishing-boat. The one appearance of the Beloved Disciple without Peter is at the foot of the cross, where Jesus entrusts his mother to him – contrasting with Peter’s earlier denial.
The close association of Peter and John in the Synoptics and Acts, and restriction of the Last Supper to the Twelve in the Synoptics should be noted in considering the identity of the Beloved Disciple.
This comparison is indicative of a claim of “one-upmanship” between the Johannine and Petrine communities. Brown suggests that Peter may be symbolic of the Christians of the Apostolic Churches. The author of the Fourth Gospel has deliberately added the Beloved Disciple to certain accounts which the Synoptics include Peter alone (eg in the Synoptics, Peter alone follows Jesus to the High Priest’s courtyard, and
Luke 24.12 has Peter run alone to the empty tomb). In Brown’s view, the author’s community is symbolically counterposing itself over “the kinds of churches that venerate Peter and the Twelve” – the Apostolic Churches.
Yet, the Fourth Gospel recognises that authority is accorded to Peter by the command to “feed my sheep”, in chapter 21. Peter’s (apostolic) death as a martyr is also recognised.
In relation to this is the author’s non-use of the category “apostle”. The primary Christian category is the “disciple”, who is guided by the Paraclete. The author stresses the living presence of Jesus, through the Paraclete, over Apostolic Christians.
That the Beloved Disciple is symbolic is evidently true. That he is merely symbolic – not a real entity – seems unlikely:
- Other disciples and characters have symbolic dimensions, such as Mary and Peter, without being pure symbols.
- If the Beloved Disciple is purely ideal or fictional, as noted above, the author of 21.20-23 was either deceived or deceptive as to the distress in the community over his (symbolic) death. The passage does not make sense without a real person – whether author, eyewitness or both – behind the rumour.
Yet, he embodies the ideal of a disciple of Jesus, standing closest to Jesus in belief and trust.
So, Who?
The Beloved Disciple is firmly associated as the authority behind the Gospel. The redactor of 21.24 goes further, and calls him the writer of the Gospel. If he was the writer, as we understand the role, the unity of the Gospel would suggest that he was the central and dominant writer. If the Beloved Disciple was only the bearer of the traditions, and another person composed the Gospel, then that other person should also be the central and dominant writer. In the latter case, it follows that the identities of the author and the Beloved Disciple would be different.
As the arguments concerning the identities of the Beloved Disciple and the author overlap, I set them both out here.
John, son of Zebedee
- The external evidence from the second century almost unanimously supports the son of Zededee as author of the Fourth Gospel.
- The close association of the Beloved Disciple with Peter fits no other disciple as well as John.
- If the author is aware of the Synoptic tradition, or at least Mark, it would take a man of real authority to challenge that tradition in the way he apparently has.
- By comparing the gospels, it has been suggested that Salome was the mother of John, and the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This might explain why Jesus entrusted his mother to the Beloved Disciple.
- If not John, then, along with James he would be unaccountably absent from the Gospel. All of the other disciples who feature in the Synoptic lists – Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas – have a major place.
- In 21.2, the Beloved Disciple is either one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two unnamed disciples. The veil of anonymity is dropped somewhat, and dropped further at the conclusion of the chapter.
- John the Baptist is only designated as “John” in the Gospel. Is the twice-emphasised “testimony” (cf 21.24) of John the Baptist in 1.6 another instance of the author’s double meaning, in indicating that the present witness/author is also John? (1.6-7 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness (
μαρτυρια) to testify (
μαρτυρεω) to the light, so that all might believe through him.”)
- Apostolic authority, in the form of the Beloved Disciple, is the highest certificate of truth for the community wishing to assert itself against other churches – more so than for a person outside of the Twelve.
Against the author or Beloved Disciple being the son of Zebedee, it has been argued that:
- John was a Galilean, but the Gospel focuses on Judaea and Jerusalem. However, if John accompanied Jesus there regularly, he would have known the area.
-
Acts 4.13 describes the son of Zebedee as “illiterate and ignorant”. This possibly speaks against the writer of the Gospel being John, although not against the Beloved Disciple as the source of the Gospel’s tradition.
- Two of the principal scenes which John witnessed – the Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden – are not mentioned in the Gospel.
- There is a fairly late (5th century) tradition that John was martyred at an early age.
- If John wrote the Fourth Gospel, he would have been 80-100 years old. However, tradition supports that he lived to an old age. If he had written much of the material earlier in his life, old age would not have adversely affected his ability to compose the Gospel.
John, the Elder
As an alternative to John the son of Zebedee, the Elder who wrote 2 & 3 John has been suggested as the author of the Gospel, or as the Beloved Disciple of Jesus.
- Papias names two separate Johns in Ephesus, each “disciples of the Lord”, writing in c AD 130. The latter John was still alive when Papias (born AD 70) made his enquiries of the elders.
However:
- There is simply no evidence in antiquity that John the Elder was the author. There is only the possible confusion of Johns in Ephesus.
- Papias mentions that John the Elder affirmed that John son of Zebedee authored the Fourth Gospel.
Anonymous Elder Disciple of Jesus
- Hengel postulates a single head of the Johannine community, an outstanding teacher, who founded the school in AD 60-70, and AD 100-110 in Asia Minor. He claimed to be a disciple of Jesus, and a disciple of quite a special kind.
- The creation of a “master preacher and theologian” or a “principal disciple marked with dramatic genius and profound theological knowledge” may raise far more problems than it solves. The greatest theologian the church has ever known, next to Paul, would therefore be unknown.
Lazarus
Lazarus is the only male specifically said to be loved by Jesus (11.3,5,36). However, it would be unusual that he is anonymous for the remainder of the Gospel, after being introduced.
John Mark
John Mark’s home was in Jerusalem (
Acts 12.12), and he perhaps had a priestly link, as his cousin Barnabas was a Levite (
Col 4.10;
Acts 4.36). However, there is no evidence to show that Jesus even knew the man.
So the traditional authorship and identity of the Beloved Disciple as John son of Zebedee appears sound. Other alternatives pose as many problems as they solve.
Robyn Banks
TheologyWeb Campus
» Theistic Metaphysics Dept.
» Apologetics 301
»
Mary Magdalene, the Beloved Disciple?
