THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH

by

DWIGHT CROWELL

B.A., Kingswood University, 2014

M.A., Acadia Divinity College, 2016

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Acadia Divinity College, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts ()

Acadia Divinity College Acadia University Spring Convocation 2016

© by DWIGHT CROWELL, 2016

This thesis by Dwight Crowell was defended successfully in an oral examination on 19 April 2016.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. Robert Wilson, Chair

Dr. Paul Anderson, External Examiner

Dr. Allison Trites, Internal Examiner

Dr. Craig A. Evans, Supervisor

This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).

ii

I, Dwight Crowell, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.

Dwight Crowell Author

Dr. Craig A. Evans Supervisor

19 April 2016 Date

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 DEFINITION OF QUESTION ...... 1 OVERVIEW OF SECONDARY LITERATUR ...... 3 Agnostic concerning the Identity of the Beloved ...... 3 The Beloved Disciple is a Literary Device or Symbolic Figure ...... 6 A Few Novel Suggestions ...... 11 Methodology and Outline of Chapters ...... 13 CHAPTER TWO: THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE ...... 15 INTRODUCTION ...... 15 ’ DISTINCTION: THE JUSTIFICATION FOR DISTINGUISHING THE APOSTLE JOHN FROM THE ELDER JOHN ...... 16 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE BETWEEN 180 AND 200 C.E...... 18 External Evidence: , Egypt, Africa, and Rome ...... 18 External Evidence: Asia Minor ...... 23 THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE BETWEEN 100 AND 180 C.E...... 51 The proto-Orthodox Use of the FG between 100 and 180 C.E...... 52 The Gnostic Use of the FG between 100 and 180 C.E...... 59 HOW JOHANNINE AUTHORSHIP AROSE AMONG THE GNOSTICS AND ...... 64 How the Valentinian Gnostics Came to Believe the FG was Written by the Apostle John...... 66 How Irenaeus and the proto-Orthodox Came to Believe that the FG was Written by the Apostle John ...... 69 CONCLUSION ...... 71 CHAPTER THREE: THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE...... 74 INTRODUCTION ...... 74 EXEGESIS OF PASSAGES THAT INCLUDE THE BELOVED DISCIPLE ...... 75 The Witness, Evangelist, and Redactor ...... 75

iv

John 13:21-30...... 77 John 19:25-27...... 83 John 20:1-10...... 87 John 21:1-8...... 92 John 21:15-25...... 96 ARGUMENTS USED TO IDENTIFY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE ...... 104 The Weak Link in Westcott’s Argument: Opening the Door to non-Apostolic Authorship...... 104 Arguments that Support and Oppose Johannine Authorship ...... 106 Arguments that Support and Oppose Lazarian Authorship ...... 109 Facts in the Fourth Gospel that are Better Explained by Lazarus than the Apostle John ...... 116 Arguments that Support and Oppose Identifying the Elder John with the Beloved Disciple ...... 120 CONCLUSION ...... 122 CHAPTER FOUR: AN EVALUATION OF THE THEORIES OF AUTHORSHIP FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL ...... 123 INTRODUCTION ...... 123 THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY THE APOSTLE JOHN AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE AND AUTHOR ...... 123 Westcott’s Process of Elimination ...... 124 Morris and Keener: Champions of Johannine Authorship ...... 124 Brown and Schnackenburg: The Scholars Who Rejected Johannine Authorship...... 126 Evaluation ...... 129 THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY THE ELDER JOHN AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OR EVANGELIST ...... 130 Building on Delff’s Theory ...... 130 Streeter and Macgregor: The Elder John, The Evangelist ...... 132 Hengel and Bauckham: The Threefold Identification ...... 134 Evaluation ...... 136

v

THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY LAZARUS AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE ...... 137 Sanders: Lazarus and John Mark ...... 138 Stibbe: Lazarus and the Elder John ...... 138 Witherington: The Elder Lazarus and ...... 139 Evaluation ...... 140 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ...... 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 145

vi

ABSTRACT

The research question for this study is, “Who provided the primary source of material for the Fourth Gospel (FG)?” This primary source is also referred to as the author or authority of the FG. In light of this and Jn 21:24, our research question could also be stated this way, “Who was the Beloved Disciple?” We limit the possibilities to three candidates, the Apostle John, the Elder John, and Lazarus of Bethany.

The method we follow to investigate this question is, first, to analyze the internal and external evidence that is relevant to FG authorship, and then to endorse a theory that best explains both lines of evidence. The first chapter investigates the external evidence, and we consider the second-century writings of the Sethian and Valentinian Gnostics and the proto-Orthodox. The second chapter analyzes the passages in the FG wherein the BD appears and evaluates the arguments, which scholars have derived from the internal evidence, that support or oppose each candidate. The third chapter considers the theories that claim that the Apostle John, the Elder John, or Lazarus of Bethany was the BD, and uses the research from chapters one and two to evaluate these theories.

The theory that identifies Lazarus with the BD and the Elder John with the Evangelist is judged as the one which best accounts for the internal and external evidence. The Elder

John was Lazarus’ disciple, and he selected, arranged, and edited Lazarus’ written memoirs (and possibly other sources) to create the FG. Because of the Elder’s role in composing the FG, the name ‘John’ was attached to it. The Elder John was soon conflated with the BD, and, near the end of the second century, the proto-Orthodox were influenced by the Valentinian Gnostics to conflate this Elder John with the Apostle John.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Craig Evans of Houston Baptist

University. His advice and feedback at each stage of writing enhanced the quality of this study. I would especially like to thank him for critiquing the early drafts of my work over burgers at Paddies Pub. Those conversations were not only profitable for my thesis, but for shaping my thinking about the New Testament and scholarship. Finally, I express deep gratitude towards Dr. Evans for remaining my thesis advisor as he made the move from Wolfville to Houston at the end of the Winter semester.

I would also like to thank two other faculty members at Acadia Divinity College.

First, Dr. Glenn Wooden for being available when I requested a fifteen-minute meeting and for being patient when those meetings turned into forty-five-minute conversations.

Second, Dr. Danny Zacharias, who was always willing to help with computer issues.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family. My father and mother for their long-suffering when I delayed acting on their requests for days and for their unwavering support as I withdrew to my room to study while I was home visiting. I would like to thank my roommate Keith Blair for providing a constant supply of coffee, so I could remain ‘swallowed up’ in my books. I would like to thank Ben Macdonald and Zach

Cooper for listening to my tortuous theories concerning who and how many authored the

Gospel of John. I would like to thank the ladies at the ‘Hilton’ for reminding me to eat and for providing me with many delicious and nourishing meals during the last month of writing. Finally, I would like to thank the people from the Woods Harbour Wesleyan

Church and the Stoney Island Baptist for their support and belief in me.

viii

[This page is blank on purpose.] CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

DEFINITION OF QUESTION

This study will suggest an answer to the question, “Who provided the primary source of material for the Fourth Gospel (FG)?” This question is worded ‘primary source’ to leave open the possibility that the Synoptics and other early traditions were used as well.

Even so, this question assumes that one source was leveraged more than the others, and so takes Jn 21:24, “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things” seriously; however, we do no accept Jn 21:24 without nuance, as will become clear in the body. But, we can anticipate one issue here, this study maintains that the primary source is the Beloved Disciple (BD) and, therefore, that he was a historical figure. Therefore, our research question could also be put, “Who was the Beloved

Disciple?”

The answer to this question is significant in several ways. First, the identity of the BD will impact one’s view on the provenance and purpose of the gospel, which, in turn, impact one’s interpretation of other issues in the FG. For instance, if the BD is the

Apostle John, who lived in Galilee and spent a significant amount of time in Judea, then one would hardly suggest that the author is anti-Semitic when he casts the “Jews” in a negative light. On the other hand, if the author is a second generation Christian from

Ephesus, then this interpretation may be plausible. Secondly, the answer to this study could raise questions concerning the FG’s . If an apostle did not write the

FG, should it have been canonized? If so, on what grounds? Thirdly, and related to the previous question, the identity of the BD affects the historical reliability of the Gospel.

For example, if one concludes that the BD is not a historical figure but a literary device or

1 symbol, then who is the primary source of material? Is that person an eyewitness, or a later believer with an agenda? Finally, one should consider an answer to this question for the sake of historical knowledge alone.

Since this question considers the primary source for FG material, this study will take into consideration the nuances of the composition of the FG by using the labels of authority, author, Evangelist, writer, and Redactor. These roles are considered in more depth in the chapter on internal evidence, but it will help to give a brief definition of what is meant by each term. To begin with, authority and author are used synonymously and mean the main source of material for the FG without necessarily implying that the figure wrote anything down; although, he may have. When the BD is mentioned in the context of the composition of the FG, he takes the role of the authority or author. Next,

Evangelist and writer are also used synonymously and refer to the person who compiled and arranged the material in the FG into something like its present form. Finally, the

Redactor is the one who made additions here-and-there and tweaked the arrangement of the Evangelist.

These labels are adopted as a means to discuss the complexities of authorship, and by doing so, no particular theory of composition is endorsed. Furthermore, any particular scholar might use these terms to mean something different than the above definitions, and, when they do so, I will do my best to indicate what they mean.

Finally, a few delimitations. First, the purpose of this study is not to answer the question of the authorship of the Johannine corpus (John, 1-3 John, and the Revelation).

Therefore, this study will not draw in-depth comparisons between the FG and other

Johannine literature, but will do so only where it is appropriate. Secondly, although

2

James Charlesworth catalogues twenty-two different suggestions that the scholarly community has made regarding the authorship of the FG,1 this study will focus on evaluating three: John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, and Lazarus of Bethany. In the overview of the secondary literature, the remaining notable candidates are reviewed.

OVERVIEW OF SECONDARY LITERATURE

Here, we review the proposals that scholars have made concerning the BD’s identity.

As Charlesworth’s survey shows, scholars have no lack of imagination when it to identifying the BD,2 and it would be impractical to delimit the plethora of options below.

So, the primary focus below is to survey, in chronological order, a representative sample of those scholars who have argued that the BD’ identity cannot be known, that the BD is a non-historical literary device or symbol, and several novel proposals. The theories that purpose that the Apostle John, the Elder John, or Lazarus is the BD are saved for chapter three wherein they are evaluated.

Agnostic concerning the Identity of the Beloved Disciple

First, the work of those scholars who consider that the BD is unidentifiable is considered. Alfred Garvie comes away with two important conclusions after he evaluates the external evidence concerning the author of the FG, he accepts Eusebius’ distinction between the Apostle John and the Elder John,3 and he concludes that the Apostle John

1 James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the ? (Valley Forge, PA: Press International, 1995), 127–224. 2 Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 127-224. 3 Alfred E. Garvie, The Beloved Disciple: Studies of the Fourth Gospel (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922), 206.

3 was certainly not the author of the FG.4 He then turns to the internal evidence to clear up the ambiguity of the church tradition. He agrees with Westcott that the BD was a

Palestinian Jew and an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry. However, he rejects Westcott’s contention that the BD was one of the Twelve;5 in fact, he asserts that all the internal evidence opposes Johannine authorship.6 In the end, he cannot say who the witness (BD) or who the redactor was. However, it makes good sense to him if the evangelist was the

Elder John, which would then explain the external evidence attributing the Gospel to “a”

John, as well as how Christians later attributed the FG, through confusion, to John, the apostle.7

Oscar Cullmann recognizes that the BD is a representative figure, but is firm regarding the fact that the Evangelist “never invents an event or a person for allegorical ends;” rather, he intends to make a point that is firmly grounded in historical events.8

Even so, the BD is not identified in the FG, and one cannot reconcile Irenaeus’ assertion that the BD is the Apostle John with the evidence in the FG. Indeed, the BD’s polemic with Peter suggests he is not even one of the Twelve; however, attempts to identify him with non-apostolic figures in the NT, such as John Mark or Lazarus, have some major problems and are probably superfluous anyway.9 Still, Cullmann believes that the FG reveals some characteristics of the BD: he was from Judea, he was known to the high priest, he eventually gathered a group of followers around himself, and he was a former follower of .10

4 Garvie, The Beloved Disciple, 217. 5 Ibid., 221–26. 6 Ibid, 230. 7 Ibid., 217–21. 8 Oscar Cullmann, The Johannnie Circle, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1976), 74. 9 Cullmann, The Johannine Circle, 74-77. 10 Ibid., 78.

4

Kevin Quast is also convinced that the BD was a historical person, a fact that for him lends significance to the enigmatic question, ‘why was the identity of the BD kept anonymous?’11 His reasoning is the converse of others, such as Bultmann, who believe that the anonymity of the BD leads to the conclusion that he was not a historical figure.12

Quast suggests a few reasons for the BD’s anonymity:13 it may encourage the reader to identify with the BD,14 it may be a common trait that the BD shares with other anonymous second generation Christian leaders, or it may be a strategy used to give the genius of the underestimated BD a chance to be considered free from bias. Whichever one of these is true, Quast holds (as Garvie does)15 that clarifying the identity of the BD is not essential to understanding his function in the FG.16

Alan Culpepper argues that the founder of the Johannine school was the BD, a historical figure who was essential to the school and who had died shortly before Jn

21:23-24 was written. The BD had the role of making Jesus known to the school, and the

Evangelist, a disciple of the BD, regarded the BD as a guarantor and source his traditions.17 However, the identity of both the Evangelist and the BD are unknown. The

11 Kevin Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 32 (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 16-17. 12 Rudolph Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, ed. R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 484. 13 Raymond Collins also maintains that the BD is an historical person whose identity is best left anonymous. But, he offers a different explanation than Quast concerning this anonymity, he suggests that “In his anonymity, he is a figure who served for the Johannine church a role similar to that which the similarly anonymous Teacher of Righteousness served for the Essene community” (Raymond F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel, Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 2 [Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990], 42-43). See also, Raymond Collins, “From John to the Beloved Disciple: An Essay on Johannine Characters,” Interpretation 49 (1995): 359-369. 14 Beck makes a similar suggestion, he argues that the anonymous characters that appear in the FG before the BD prepare the reader to identify with the BD who is the paradigm of discipleship and the point of insertion into the narrative world ( R. Beck, “The Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization,” Semeia 63 [1993]: 154-55). 15 Garvie, The Beloved Disciple, 234. 16 Quast, Peter and the BD, 18-21. 17 Alan R. Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools, (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 264-70.

5

FG does not identify its writer and, although Jn 21:2 narrows down the potential candidates who could be the BD, we have no way of discerning which disciple who accompanied Peter fishing he is. Furthermore, although Christians near the end of the 2nd century attributed the FG to the Apostle John, there seems to be confusion in their accounts; specifically, Irenaeus, whose credibility can be questioned.18

George Beasley-Murray thinks that the testimony of the Church to Johannine authorship is impressive, but that it is also convoluted and exaggerated. Concerning

Irenaeus, we are justified in being critical of his understanding of , who he heard discuss a John while he was a boy.19 Nonetheless, after considering the internal evidence, he judges that the BD was not one of the Twelve, but still a historical figure who was an eyewitness. Although he was the witness that the material in the FG rests upon, he did not write the Gospel, and his identity “remains the secret of the Evangelist.”20

The Beloved Disciple is a Literary Device or Symbolic Figure

Next, we consider those scholars who judge that the BD is a non-historical literary device or symbol. Adolf Jülicher finds it suspicious that, if the writer is the BD, he keeps himself hidden and does not make any ‘I’ claims (Jn 19:35, 20:31). These lack of ‘I’ claims are suspicious because the BD had apparently witnessed some essential events to

Jesus life that he could have added a weighty testimony to with an ‘I’ claim. Jülicher suggests that there are no “I” claims because the writer is a later Christian who composed an idealist gospel featuring an ideal disciple. He crafted this ideal disciple as one who

18 Alan R. Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, (Nashville, Abingdon Press: 1998), 29-37 19 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36. 2nd ed., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), lxvi-lxviii. 20 Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii-lxxiv.

6 knew Jesus’ heart and so could testify to the spiritual and greater aspects of Jesus, aspects that those who merely reported what they saw could not testify to. So, for Jülicher the BD is “in fact, not a figure of flesh and blood at all.”21

Jülicher continues to fill in the historical background of the FG. He suggests that the writer was a Christian-born son of Jewish-Christian parents who wrote during the 2nd century.22 This writer felt the need to compose the FG because, in his own setting, the

Jews brought accusations against Christ that the Synoptics could not answer. The FG, then, was conceived of as an apologetic, portraying Christ in a way that could answer the challenges. But, the writer still needed an eye-witness story to base his apologetic on, so he looked to John of (possibly the Apostle or presbyter) who had died, but whose oral witness remained. He then modified John’s testimony to fit his situation.23

Similar to Jülicher, E. F. Scott held that the Fourth Evangelist was an unknown figure who was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, but one who probably lived in Ephesus and wrote during the early 2nd century.24 According to Scott, the Fourth Evangelist did not rely on the BD for his tradition, but the Synoptic tradition, Paul, and Alexandrian philosophy. The Evangelist then filtered the ideas he gleaned from those sources through his unique attitude and conception of to create something new.25 One of the

Fourth Evangelist’s more prominent Alexandrian influences was Philo’s allegorical method: in the FG, as in Philo, historical facts are symbolic of a spiritual meaning. Based on this connection, Scott suggests that the BD (along with Nicodemus, Thomas, and

21 Adolf Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament, trans. J. P. Ward (London Smith, Elder & Co., 1904), 413-4. 22 Jülicher, Introduction to the NT, 415. 23 Ibid., 422-428. 24 Ernest F. Scott, The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1909), 9-15 25 E.F. Scott, the Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1908), 29-64, esp. 29-30.

7

Philip) are “not so much individuals as religious types.”26 For Scott, the BD’s religious type is displayed at the Last Supper: the company at the Last Supper was “the prototype of the future church” and that the BD “represents the Church in its essential idea.”27

Based on Mark 10:39 and Church tradition, Rudolph Bultmann believed, despite

Irenaeus’ testimony, that the Apostle John was killed well before the FG was composed.

Further, he maintained that the presbyter John did not write the FG either; rather, the author is unknown.28 Concerning the BD, he thought that the redactor believed that the

BD was the Elder John, who was an eyewitness. But, Bultmann argues that the BD cannot be a historical person because if he were it would be impossible to explain why the Evangelist does not reveal his name. Instead, the BD is an ideal figure, and, based on the scene at the cross (Jn 19:25-27), the BD stands for Gentile Christendom29 while

Jesus’ mother represents Jewish Christendom.30

Barnabas Lindars claims that the purpose of Jn 21:19-23 was an attempt to stop speculation about the BD that had arisen from the body of the FG. In vv. 19-23, Jesus does not answer Peter’s question about the BD, communicating that the question should never have been asked. However, this strategy backfired on the Evangelist by causing the speculation to increase, eventually leading to the addition of v. 24 by someone who thought that the BD’s anonymity meant that he was the Evangelist. Contrary to this interpretation, Lindars reasons that the BD’s anonymity suggests that he was an ideal figure; however, he interestingly adds that the BD was also a historical figure, one of the

26 Scott, Purpose and Theology, 56-7. 27 Ibid., 144. 28 Bultmann, John, 11–12. 29 Margaret Pamment also concludes that the BD represents gentile Christianity after she studies the FG to discern how named and unnamed characters in the FG function (Margaret Pamment, “The Fourth Gospel’s Beloved Disciple,” The Expository Times 94 [1983]: 363–67). 30 Bultmann, John, 483-484.

8

Twelve. The Evangelist wanted to represent one of the Twelve as a perfect disciple, but he could not decide who would fit. So, “[h]e has taken advantage of the facelessness of most of them in the tradition to impose on one of them the features which are needed for his purpose.”31 For Lindars, then, the BD is an abstraction of how one of the apostles should have related to Jesus.

Margaret Davies posits that the BD was an ideal figure based on several considerations of the external and internal evidence. She argues that the paucity of references to the FG in the first few centuries speaks against apostolic authority 32 and that Irenaeus claimed apostolic authorship for the FG to oppose heresies.33 Further, she judges that the author’s presentation of the material in the FG is not one we might expect from an eyewitness.34 Based on these considerations she differentiates the author of the

FG from the BD whom she suggests is “a dramatized representative of the ideal disciple.”35 Concerning the writer, she judges that he was not a Jew, but was in possession of traditions that reflected accurate knowledge of Judea,36 knowledge that the writer could have gleaned from the Jewish Scriptures or the Synoptic .37

For these scholars the BD is not a historical figure, rather, he is a literary device who is a representation or symbol of something else. However, others have argued that the representational or idealistic dimension of the BD does not restrict the BD from also being a historical figure; he is, in fact, both.

31 Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 31-34. 32 Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 69 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 251. 33 Davies, Rhetoric and Reference, 251. 34 Ibid., 285. 35 Ibid., 341. 36 Ibid., 347. 37 Ibid., 285–89.

9

David Hawkin observes that the BD appears at the crucial points in the second half of the FG (beginning with Jn 13),38 and analyzes the BD in these events to discern his function in the narrative.39 He concludes that the BD plays the role of “authenticator and witness of tradition,” and that through the BD the author of the FG is claiming to be orthodox.40 Although Hawkin does not focus on the historical nature of the Beloved

Disciple, he does maintain “that he is a historical figure with paradigmatic significance.”41 Furthermore, William Kurz regards Jn 21 as confirming both the ideal and historical function of the Beloved Disciple: ideally, he is the first to recognize Jesus

(Jn21:7); historically, he has died.42

Despite uncertainty regarding the BD’s identity, Alan Culpepper suggests that scholars are reaching a consensus concerning the Beloved Disciple in general. He is both a historical figure and a representational figure in an idealized, symbolic role. This disciple was a Judean and an eyewitness who was the Johannine community’s apostolic authority in the face of Petrine tradition.43 Indeed, most commentators view the BD as a historical figure with some symbolic or representational dimension as well.44

38 David J. Hawkin, “The Function of the Beloved Disciple Motif in the Johannine Redaction,” Laval Théologique Philosophique 33 (1977): 140. 39 Hawkin, “The Function of the BD,” 140-148. 40 Ibid., 149-150. 41 Ibid., 149. 42 William S. Kurz, “The beloved disciple and implied readers,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19, (July 1989): 105. E. Schillito also believes that the BD is an historical person, but that he also functions in a representative way as an ideal figure (E. Schillito, “The Beloved Disicple,” The Expository Times 29 [1918]: 473-474). See also Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Beloved Disciple as eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as witness,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002): 3–26. 43 Alan R. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 84–85. 44 E.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 1, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1966), xciv-xcv; Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii; Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 87-88.

10

A Few Novel Suggestions

James Charlesworth primarily devotes his monograph “The Beloved Disciple” to exploring the identity of the BD. He exegetes the relevant passages in the FG and examines all of the scholarly suggestions before laying out twelve exegetical insights which suggest that Thomas is the BD.45 His most forceful insight is that Thomas possessed knowledge that only the BD had, namely, he knew about Jesus’ pierced side

(Jn 19:32-35, Jn 20:25).46 Furthermore, Charlesworth makes the case that the rivalry in the FG between the BD and Peter might be reflected in the strained relations between the early Christians in the West (represented by Peter), and the early Christians in the East

(represented by Thomas).47 However, he does recognize that there are difficulties with his suggestion and lists them as a series of speculations.48 Among these objections are that

Thomas is never singled out as one who is loved by Jesus, Thomas is from Galilee whereas the BD is from Judea, and it is hard to square Thomas’ doubting with the BD who is always ready to believe.49 Charlesworth’s monograph is a core resource for anyone investigating the Johannine question.

Eric Titus presents the possibility that Matthias of Acts 1:15-26 could have been the

BD. He looks at the criteria the apostles used to pick a disciple who would replace Judas as one of twelve and suggests that the BD meets these criteria just as Matthias had.50 To strengthen the connection between Matthias and the Beloved Disciple Titus tries to show

45 Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 225–87. For Keener’s assessment of Charlesworth’s argument that Thomas is the BD, see (Keener, John, 1:86-87). 46 Ibid., 225-233. 47 Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 390-41. 48 Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 291–324. Interestingly, he refers to the arguments against Lazarus being the BD as ‘evidence,’ whereas the arguments against Thomas are only ‘speculations.’ 49 Ibid., 291-292, 292-296, and 303-314 respectively. 50 Eric Lane Titus, “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950): 323–28, here 323–24.

11 the influence that Acts had on the FG. He maintains that the FG is in fact “an elaboration of that part of the speech of Peter set forth in Acts 2.22-36.”51 In addition to the connection with Acts, Titus finds significance in the of the beloved disciple with the exit of Judas at the Last Supper, for Matthias is the one ultimately to replace him.52

Although it doesn’t directly impact the identity of the BD, Paul Minear purposes an intriguing hypothesis: the BD title is an allusion to the blessing pronounces on

Benjamin in Deuteronomy 33:12.53 To defend this, he argues that the FG attempts to portray Jesus as the Prophet-Messiah like Moses, and Minear focuses on “the role of

Benjamin in that Mosaic portrait.”54 He does this by studying the farewell discourses in

Deut 29-33 and Jn 13-17, concentrating on the parallels between Deut 33 and Jn 17.55 He explains that Deut 33:12 Benjamin is the beloved of the Lord, and in Jn 17 the Evangelist shows interest in the BD figure. Moreover, the clause in Deut 33:12 “while he abides securely at his breast” can mean that Benjamin dwells between the shoulders of the Lord, which creates a striking parallel to the BD who reclines on Jesus’ breast.56

This survey has focused on the most important suggestions concerning the BD’s identity other than the Apostle John, the Elder John, and Lazarus. Next, we complete the introduction with a discussion of the method used for this investigation and an outline of each chapter.

51 Titus, “The Identity of the BD,” 328. 52 Ibid., 325. 53 Paul Sevier Minear, “Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John: Some Clues and Conjectures,” Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 122. 54 Minear, “BD in John,” 106-108. 55 Ibid., 109. 56 Ibid., 109-114. To create a deeper connection between the BD and Benjamin Minear argues that the Evangelist used descriptive epithets to communicate symbolic meaning in the FG (Ibid., 105-106).

12

Methodology and Outline of Chapters

This study will focus on the internal and external evidence relevant to identifying the

BD. The passages of the FG wherein the BD appears will be exegeted to describe the

BD’s characteristics and his function in the narrative of the FG. The investigation of the external evidence will analyze references to the identity of the BD or the author of the FG during the second century. This period will be subdivided into two smaller periods: 100-

180 C.E. and 180 to 200 C.E., and the references made to the author by the proto-

Orthodox and the Gnostics will be considered separately.

In the previous studies of authorship, it is clear that the external evidence favors one conclusion and the internal evidence another. However, this study will not follow the method of weighing the external evidence against the internal evidence and then opting to follow one over the other. Rather, this study assumes that a satisfactory answer needs to be able to explain the external evidence in a way that is consistent with the internal evidence.

Finally, the observations of the scholarly community will be leveraged by engaging in a dialogue with their arguments and theories concerning , John the Elder, and Lazarus of Bethany as potential authors of the FG.

Chapter one investigates the external evidence relevant to FG authorship. It begins by discussing the justification for distinguishing the Apostle John from the Elder John. Then, it moves to investigating the external evidence between 180 and 200 C.E., which is dominated by the proto-Orthodox such as Irenaeus, Polycrates of Ephesus, Clement of

Alexandria, and others. Next, it studies the external evidence between 100 and 180 C.E., which is dominated by the Valentinian Gnostics, although the proto-Orthodox are represented. Finally, it offers a tentative explanation concerning how Johannine

13 authorship arose among both the Gnostics and the proto-Orthodox during the second century.

Chapter two begins by exegeting the passages wherein the BD appears with his honorific title: Jn 13:21-30; 19:25-27; 20:1-10; 21:1-8; 21:15-25. The primary purpose here is to discern how he functions within the narrative. Next, Westcott’s process of elimination will be analyzed to show that his fourth step, the author was an apostle, is the crux of the argument for our investigation. Then, the most persuasive arguments used to support or oppose identifying the author with the Apostle John, the Elder John, or

Lazarus of Bethany are considered.

Chapter three, the final chapter, will evaluate the theories of authorship which support our three candidates in light of the conclusions drawn from chapters one and two.

Further, we will argue that the threefold identification of the Elder John with the

Evangelist and the BD should be falsified in light of the internal evidence which supports that Lazarus is the BD. Finally, we will present the theory of FG authorship which best makes sense in light of our study and then conclude.

14

CHAPTER TWO: THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and discuss the external evidence pertinent to identifying the author of the FG. This evidence will be divided into two eras: 100 to 180 C.E. and

180 to 200 C.E. The justification for this division is that c. 180 C.E. proto-Orthodox writers suddenly began to mention the author of the FG; whereas, before then, they simply used the gospel without referring to its author. When the proto-Orthodox do begin to mention the author of the FG they identify him as a John,57 but the core issue with this identification for modern scholars is whether or not this John is the Apostle John or the Elder John.

It will be helpful to begin pursuing the matter by discussing why the Elder John is a candidate for this interpretation, before moving on to analyze the external evidence between 180 and 200

C.E., between 100 and 180 C.E., and then finishing with a tentative explanation of this evidence and what caused the proto-Orthodox to identify the author of the FG with the Apostle John c. 180

C.E. The thesis is that between 100 and 180 C.E. the proto-Orthodox were hesitant to use the FG because they believed that it was written by the Elder John who was also called John, the disciple of the Lord; whereas, the Valentinian gnostics treated it authoritatively because they believed that it was authored by the Apostle John. Sometime before 180 C.E the Valentinians influenced a new generation of proto-Orthodox scholars to identify their Elder John with the Apostle John.

57 Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, speaks of a group called the Alogoi (without reason, dumb) who do not accept the teaching in the FG, attributing it to Cerinthus rather than John (Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3.6). Epiphanius defends the FG against this claim (Panarion 51.4.1-2) and traces the origins of the Alogoi to Theodotus of Byzantium (Epiphanius, Pan. 54. C. 1) who was excommunicated by Victor I for denying the divinity of Christ. Theodotus' motivation for denying apostolic authorship to the FG, then, would be because the FG has a high Christology. Westcott is probably right when he says, “Such an exception can have no weight against the uniform ecclesiastical tradition with which it is contrasted” (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, vol. 1, [London: John Murray, 1908], lxi).

15

EUSEBIUS’ DISTINCTION: THE JUSTIFICATION FOR DISTINGUISHING THE APOSTLE JOHN FROM THE ELDER JOHN

A major issue in examining the external evidence for the authorship of the FG is the existence or non-existence of the Elder John. When the proto-Orthodox began to name the author of the FG in the late 2nd century, most simply called him John. A tempting assumption for later Christians would be to assume that this John was the Apostle John; however, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 324) made a distinction between the

Apostle John and an Elder John. This distinction makes room for an alternative interpretation of the external evidence: the John who the proto-Orthodox claimed wrote the FG may be the Elder John.

Eusebius was prompted to make this distinction because Irenaeus claimed that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John. To demonstrate that Irenaeus was mistaken, Eusebius quotes Papias to show that he only claimed to receive traditions from the followers of the apostles rather than the apostle’s themselves (Hist. eccl. 3.39.3). Furthermore, Eusebius continues to quote Papias to show that he wrote of two separate Johns; one an apostle, the other an elder,

If then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to 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.58

Commenting on this excerpt, Eusebius points out that a John is recorded in the list of apostles while another – the Elder (presbyter) John – is listed apart from the apostles with

Aristion (Hist. eccl. 3.39.5). Eusebius then claims, without providing a quotation, that

Papias said he himself was a hearer of this Elder John (Hist. eccl. 3.39.7). In sum,

58 Hist. eccl. 3.39.4 (NPNF 1:171).

16

Eusebius undermines Irenaeus’ claim that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John by demonstrating that Papias was only a hearer of the followers of the apostles and the Elder

John (implying that Irenaeus mistook the Elder John for the Apostle); many scholars follow Eusebius’ reasoning.59

Although Eusebius’ reasoning is impressive, it is not free from critique. For instance,

Eusebius may have embellished when he reports that Papias said he was a hearer of the

Elder John. Eusebius says, “[Papias] says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the

Elder John. At least, he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings.”60 If Eusebius’ evidence for the proposition that Papias was a hearer of

Aristion and the Elder John is that Papias mentions them frequently by name and records their traditions, then he has inferred that Papias was a hearer of the Elder John rather than read as much in Papias’ writings.61

Nonetheless, if Eusebius is correct, the implications for the question of FG authorship are twofold. First, if Papias claimed that the John he heard authored the FG, then he means the Elder John. This, in turn, implies that if Irenaeus is using Papias as an authority for his belief that the Apostle John authored the FG, then he has mistakenly spread this tradition. The second implication is that the other proto-Orthodox writers who attribute the FG to a John may be speaking of this Elder John rather than the Apostle

John. In other words, Eusebius' interpretation of Papias gives life to the Elder John and

59 For example, Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), 81; J.N. Sanders and B.A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 34-35; Garvie, The Beloved Disciple, 206-207; G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), li. 60 Hist. eccl. 3.39.7 (NPNF 1:171-172); italics mine. 61 Or, Eusebius might have inferred the same, as some scholars do, from Papias use of the present tense when speaking of Aristion and the Elder John, “what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say” (Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 35; Macgregor, John, li).

17 allows for an alternative interpretation of the early external evidence for the identity of the author of the FG.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE BETWEEN 180 AND 200 C.E.

The years between 180 to 200 C.E. are characterized by a sudden trend, compared to the previous eighty years, of proto-Orthodox writers discussing the authorship of the FG.

In contrast, gnostic writers do not contribute to the discussion during this time, rather their contribution comes during the middle of the 2nd century. The proto-Orthodox evidence during this time period is homogenous: a John authored the FG; however, one can interpret each writer as if he is referring to the Elder John or the Apostle John.

Below we survey the proto-Orthodox writers who discuss the authorship of the FG between 180 and 200 C.E., organizing the evidence according to geography.62 The discussion beings at Antioch () and then Egypt (Clement of

Alexandria), Africa (Tertullian), and Rome (), and then focuses on

Asia Minor, the heart of the tradition about this John. In Asia Minor, we analyze the evidence from the trio of Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, and then from Polycrates.

External Evidence: Antioch, Egypt, Africa, and Rome

Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycus is the earliest extant proto-Orthodox writing to identify the author of the FG with a John (c. 180 C.E.).63 Theophilus writes,

62 This arrangement is inspired by Schnackenburg, according to St John, 77-78; William Hendriksen, A Commentary on the gospel of John, 3rd ed. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1954), 24. 63 Although Irenaeus was working on, even possibly finished, his Adversus Haereses by this time (Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 39-40).

18

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him.64 Theophilus attributes the FG to a John without identifying him further. Some scholars argue that since Theophilus does not identify this John as the apostle, then we cannot conclude so;65 but, despite this lack of clarity others believe that Theophilus has the

Apostle John is in mind.66 Theophilus’ practice of not clarifying the identity of his John is an example of a larger theme among proto-Orthodox writers of this period. This ambiguity present in each proto-Orthodox writer allows scholars to interpret their John as either the Apostle or the Elder.

Clement of Alexandria provides the evidence from Egypt. Clement’s literary productivity was at its height between 190-203 C.E.67 In his Hypotyposes, he gives an account of the canonical Christian writings (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1), including the order in which the Gospels were composed, as taught by the earliest presbyters (Hist. eccl. 6.14.5)

– successors of the apostles in this case.68 Clement wrote that Matthew and Luke were composed first, then Mark, and,

last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.69

64 Theophilus, Ad Autolycus 2.22 (ANF: 2:103). 65 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955), 94. 66 Westcott, according to John, lxi; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 16; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 39. 67 Brooke Foss Westcott, “,” Edited by William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887) 560. 68 See Hist. eccl. 6.13.8. See also Schnackenburg, John, 82. 69 Hist. eccl. 6.14.7 (NPNF: 1:261).

19

Like Theophilus, Clement simply identifies the author as ‘John’, this leaves room for the possibility that he is referring to the Elder John. Unlike Theophilus Clement adds a further detail, namely, that John was “urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit”.

These details may be a summary of the event described in the Muratorian Fragment

(discussed below).

Although Clement only refers to ‘John’, it is reasonable that he meant the Apostle

John when the tradition he records about the Apostle John elsewhere is considered. In his

Quis Dives Salvetur, Clement relates a story about how the Apostle John rescued the soul of an apostate youth. He introduces the story this way, “…here a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to

Ephesus.”70 This description suggests in two ways that Clement thought the Apostle John authored the FG. First, the tyrant is probably Domitian,71 and so the story is set after C.E.

96. This is consistent with Clement’s statement above that John wrote last of all. Second,

Clement believes the Apostle John was the John who was exiled on Patmos and later lived in Ephesus, details which other traditions attribute to the John who authored the FG

(Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; 3.3.4; Hist. eccl. 5.24.2-8). If Clement believed details about the

Apostle John that other traditions ascribed to the John who authored the FG, then it is possible that Clement believed that both John’s were one and the same.

70 Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur 42 (Butterworth, LCL). Even if the story is a legend (Schnackenburg, John, 82), Clement clearly believes that the Apostle John was the John who was exiled to Patmos and later resided in Ephesus. 71 Clement of Alexandria, Quis Dives Salvetur (trans. G. W. Butterworth. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 356 n3. cf. Adv. Haer. 3.3.4, 2.22.4

20

Tertullian, a presbyter in , provides the evidence from Africa. In the early 2nd century he wrote five books against Marcion.72 While defending the Gospels against

Marcion’s teaching Tertullian explains that two Gospels were written by the apostles

John and Matthew, while Luke and Mark were written by “apostolic men” (Ad Marcion

4.2) – a title he uses for a disciple of an apostle.73

Although Tertullian’s statement is late for this study, one can infer that Marcion believed that the Apostle John authored the FG from Tertullian’s understanding that the

Apostle John authored the FG;74 thus, providing a mid-second century attestation to

Johannine authorship. The inference is based on this passage,

…but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians…labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles…75

Tertullian explains that Marcion used the anti-apostolic tone of Galatians76 to attack the Gospels published under the name of apostles, which are the Gospels of Matthew and

John in Tertullian’s understanding. So since Marcion is attacking the FG with the anti- apostolic tone of Galatians, he must have thought the FG was written by an Apostle.

72 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “Introductory Note,” Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 36. 73 Tertullian explains this phrase thus, “Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.2 [ANF 3:347]). 74 Benjamin W. Bacon, The Gospel of the Hellenists, ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New York: Henery Holt, 1933), 11. 75 Tertullian, Marc. 4.3 (ANF 3:348) italics mine. 76 Marcion could have leveraged two thoughts in Galatians to depreciate apostolic gospels: Paul’s rebuke of Peter (Gal. 2:14), and his tone towards James, Cephas, and John which could be interpreted as subversive (e.g., “who seem to be pillars” [Gal.2:9]; “who seemed to be influential” [Gal 2:6]).

21

The Muratorian Fragment provides the evidence from Rome. It dates to the end of the 2nd century; 77 and the author could either be of Rome or Hippolytus.78 The

Fragment describes the occasion when the idea to write the FG was conceived,

The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow- disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, “Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.” On the same night, it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind 79 The John in The Fragment can be interpreted as either the Apostle or the Elder John.

In support of the Elder John interpretation, one might argue that the label ‘one of the disciples’ excludes the Apostle John possibility. However, this argument cannot bear so much weight because Andrew is called ‘one of the apostles’ although he is also a ‘fellow- disciple’ with John.

On the other hand, context supports the Apostle John interpretation. The author of

The Fragment attributes the FG, the Revelation, and the two Epistles of a John without making an effort to distinguish John's,80 suggesting the author believed the same John authored all four works. Since the author of The Fragment believed the Apostle John wrote the Revelation,81 it follows that he also believed the Apostle John wrote the FG. 82

77 Traditionally the Fragment has been dated to the late 2nd century; however, Geoffrey Hahneman has followed A.C. Sundberg in re-dating the Fragment to the 4th century (Hahnemann, Geoffrey Mark. “More on redating the Muratorian Fragment.” In Studia patristica [Louvain: Peeters, 1989] 359-365; A.C. Sundberg, Jr., “Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon”, Studia Evangelica, vol. 4 [1968]: 452-61). 78 Schnackenburg, John, 83. 79 Caius, Canon Muratorianus 1 (ANF 5:603). 80 Caius, Canon Muratorianus 4. For example, the author says, “…and two belonging to the above- named John – or bearing the name of John – are reckoned among the Catholic epistles” (Caius, Canon Muratorianus 4 [ANF 5:603-604]). 81 The author reveals this when he says “…as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name…” (Caius, Canon Muratorianus 3 [ANF 5:603]) The reference to the seven churches shows that John’s Revelation is in view, and by calling John Paul’s predecessor the author strongly suggests that John is the Apostle. Furthermore, several decades

22

Although The Fragment can be interpreted to support the hypothesis that the Apostle

John wrote the FG, anachronisms limit The Fragment’s historical accuracy. For example,

The Fragment is anachronistic when it claims that John’s “fellow-disciples” were alive when the Gospel was written.83 Because of this legendary element, The Fragment only shows that in Rome during the late 2nd century at least one person believed that the

Apostle John authored the FG. 84

In sum, the proto-Orthodox writers from Antioch, Egypt, Africa, and Rome identify a

John as the author of the FG. Although in each case this John can be interpreted as the

Apostle John or the Elder John, these writers (save Theophilus) are probably speaking of the Apostle John. The context of The Muratorian Fragment and Clement of Alexandria's

Quis Dives Salvetur suggest this, and although Tertullian’s statement is slightly late, he clearly believes so.

External Evidence: Asia Minor

The testimony concerning the author of the FG in Asia Minor between 180 and 200

C.E is consistent with the testimony in Antioch, Egypt, Africa, and Rome: a John, more likely the apostle than the Elder, authored the FG. All of our witnesses to the authorship of the FG surveyed so far only make brief statements about the issue; this is not the case with Irenaeus. In Adversus Haereses (c. 181 A.D.) Irenaeus engages consistently and at length with the FG, often identifying its author with John, the disciple of the Lord, whom earlier provides precedent for the belief in Rome that the Apostle John wrote the Revelation (Justin, Dial. 81). 82 For the opposing view see, Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 42; Macgregor, John, liv. 83 Schnackenburg, John, 84; Hendriksen, John, 23; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 42. 84 Hendriksen, John, 23. Hendriksen typically allows the evidence to speak generously towards conservative positions, so his statement that the Muratorian Fragment has limited historical credibility is telling.

23 he believed to be the Apostle John.85 For this reason, Irenaeus’ evidence receives a comparatively large amount of attention. The discussion in Asia Minor begins with

Irenaeus and the potential sources for his belief that the Apostle John authored the FG:

Polycrates and Papias. It then moves to Polycrates of Ephesus which concludes the discussion on the external evidence between 180 and 200 C.E.

Irenaeus and His Authorities, Polycarp and Papias

Irenaeus

In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1. Irenaeus states clearly that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG. After we analyze this statement, we focus on the title, ‘disciple of the

Lord’, and discover that Irenaeus probably thought his John was the same person as the

Apostle John.

In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1. Irenaeus describes in detail, compared to the other proto-

Orthodox writers, the author of the FG, he says,

John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.86

Irenaeus predicates four details about this John. This John ‘leaned upon Jesus’ breast’, a detail that identifies John with the BD (Jn 13:25), and, therefore, clarifies the next detail that John ‘published a Gospel’: since John is the BD, the Gospel is the FG (Jn

85 A few scholars assert that Irenaeus did not think John, the disciple of the Lord, was the apostle (Macgregor, John, lviii-lix; C. F. Burney, The Origin of the Fourth Gospel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922], 141.). Others think it is uncertain whether Irenaeus thought that this was the apostle or not (William Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905], 105; Garvie, Studies of the Fourth, 214-215; J.N. Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 41). But, many scholars are convinced that Irenaeus believed that this John was the apostle (H.A.A. Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” The Expository Times 29, no. 5 [1918]: 236; Morris, John, 16; Barrett, according to John, 84). 86 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ANF 1:414.

24

21:20-25). This inference is substantiated by Irenaeus’ quotations of John, the disciple of the Lord’s, Gospel which is clearly the FG (e.g., Adv. Haer. 2.2.5, 2.22.3). In addition to identifying this John as the BD who published the FG, Irenaeus relates that he published his Gospel ‘during his residence at Ephesus in Asia’. We learn elsewhere that John remained in Ephesus until the times of Trajan (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4).

The last component of Irenaeus’ description to discuss is the first proposition Irenaeus predicates about John, that he is ‘the disciple of the Lord’. The meaning of this title is analyzed in depth below, with three question in mind: first, “is Irenaeus’ John, disciple of the Lord, the Apostle John?”; second, “if Irenaeus believes that John, the disciple of the

Lord, is the Apostle John, why does he not call him the Apostle John?”; and third, “is

Irenaeus a trustworthy source?”

The interpretation that John, the disciple of the Lord, is the Apostle John can be debated because Irenaeus does not state that ‘I mean apostle when I write disciple of the

Lord’.87 Further, scholars disagree over whether or not writers during the 2nd century used the phrase ‘disciple of the Lord’ to refer to an apostle.88 Since individual authors could use a phrase with varying nuances, we investigate Irenaeus’ own use of John, the disciple of the Lord. The context of several select passages suggests that Irenaeus’ ‘disciple of the

Lord’, is the Apostle John.

87 Sanday is one who debates this. He points out that neither Irenaeus, Papias, nor the Muratorian Fragment calls John an Apostle, but does allow for the possibility to be inferred from Hist. eccl. 3.23.4 (Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 105). For a similar opinion, see Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 41. 88 For example, Kennedy writes that ‘apparently’ the phrase “disciple of the Lord” was a favorite second-century description for one of the twelve (Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” 236). However, Garvie points this out as a conjecture (Garvie, Studies of the Fourth, 214). Others do not discuss this issue much, but are convinced that although this John is never explicitly called an apostle, he is indeed the apostle, see Morris, John, 16; Barrett, according to St John, 84.

25

First, as noted above, it is clear that for Irenaeus John, the disciple of the Lord, is the author of the Fourth Gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, 2.2.5, 2.22.3; Jn 13:25, 21:20-25).

Secondly, Irenaeus makes it clear that John, the disciple of the Lord, was literally a disciple of the Lord. Irenaeus writes “That John knew the one and the same Word of

God…Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself.”89

Third, Irenaeus includes this John in a list of the apostles, he writes, “I judge it necessary therefore to take into account the entire mind of the apostles regarding our Lord Jesus

Christ…”90 The first apostle he discusses in his list is the John who wrote the FG (and, therefore, the disciple of the Lord), and follows him with Matthew.91 Together, these passages show that for Irenaeus John, the disciple of the Lord, was the author of the FG, literally knew Jesus, and deserved the first position in a list of apostles. These details imply that Irenaeus thought John, the disciple of the Lord, was Apostle John.92

To strengthen these contextual considerations one might explain why Irenaeus prefers the title ‘the disciple of the Lord’ for John although he regards John as the apostle. A possible explanation is that Irenaeus was influenced by the FG whose author prefers to call Jesus’ followers, including the apostles, disciples. In the FG, the noun ἀπόστολος93 is never used to describe the twelve apostles, and the author only refers to the apostles as

“the Twelve” three times, all of which occur in four verses (Jn 6:67-71). In contrast, the

89 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.16.2 (ANF 1:440). See also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33.3. 90 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.16.1 (ANF 1:440). 91 There is room for debate on this point. In Adv. Haer. 3.16.3 Irenaeus goes on to discuss Paul; however, in Adv. Haer. 3.16.4 he discusses (Lk 2:22-35) who not an apostle in any restricted sense. Indeed, Irenaeus’ use of ‘apostle’ is not restricted to the twelve. (Garvie, Studies of the Fourth, 211-213). Sanday similarly cautions that the title ‘apostle’ used beyond the Twelve in the early church until about the end of the second century (save Paul and a few others) (Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 106). But, that John is first in the list is surely suggestive. 92 For other passages that suggest Irenaeus thought his John was the apostle, see Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4 93 The root στελλω is used 29 times in John. It occurs 28 times as a verb (mostly in the context of Jesus being sent), and once as a noun (Jn 13.16).

26 author prefers to call a follower of Jesus a μαθητής,94 including those who are labeled

“apostles” in the Synoptics. For instance, John 6:8 reads, “One of His disciples, Andrew,

Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him.” 95 Irenaeus’ heavy reliance of the FG throughout

Adv. Haer. may have influenced him to apply “disciple” over “apostle” to the one he thought authored the FG; the very one who obviously preferred the term “disciple” to

“apostle” in his own work.96

If it is conceded that Irenaeus referred to the Apostle John, one still needs reasons to trust Irenaeus’ testimony.97 Some scholars suggest that because Irenaeus interacted with

Christians throughout the , he represents the 2nd century Church’s beliefs, including its belief concerning the authorship of the FG.98 However, this widespread exposure to Christian beliefs does not make Irenaeus incapable of errors. For example, our confidence in Irenaeus is shaken by his claim that Jesus was 40 to 50 years old at his death, a tradition which he bases on the Gospel and the testimony of Elders (Adv. Haer.

2.22.5), but one which no scholar accepts. If this dubious claim is the result of Irenaeus’ interpretation of his sources, can we trust his appeals to other traditions?99 Furthermore, as discussed above, Eusebius shows that Irenaeus has conflated two Johns into one (Hist. eccl. 3.39.1-7); Barrett thinks our confidence cannot be strong in Irenaeus based on this

94 The lemma of μαθητής is used 78 times throughout the FG. 95 See also Jn 11:16; 18:5; 18:16; 20:2; 20:3, 4, 8, 10; 21:1-14. 96 Irenaeus was probably not the first to use disciple rather the apostle to describe the Twelve. Papias also follows the FG in this as well (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4) and it is possible that Irenaeus gleaned it from Papias. 97 In the early twentieth century, many scholars came to view Irenaeus’ material about the Fourth Gospel as worthless (H.A.A. Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” The Expository Times 29, no. 3 [1917]: 103-104). Kennedy responds to this skepticism in H.A.A. Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” The Expository Times 29, no. 7 [1918]: 312-314). 98 Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), 1; Hendriksen, Gospel of John, 22. Note, that Grant makes that caveat that he does not strictly represent the majority views of all of Christendom, for Alexandria was closer to the speculative system which he fought. 99 Garvie, Studies of the Fourth, 213.

27 error.100 These two critiques provide reasons to be firmly critical of Irenaeus’ work; although not skeptical. One can assert that Irenaeus jumped to conclusions at points without counting him as credulous or labeling his witness as dubious; after all, even a careful scholar can make a mistake.101

Among the proto-Orthodox witnesses to the belief that a John authored the FG,

Irenaeus provides the most details about this John, and most importantly that the John who authored the FG is the apostle. However, these claims by Irenaeus should not be accepted without reflection: Irenaeus misunderstood his sources elsewhere. This caution is kept in mind during the analysis below of how traditions about John, the disciple of the

Lord, were passed to Irenaeus from his sources, Polycarp and Papias.

Irenaeus’ Authorities: Polycarp

Most scholars agree that Irenaeus’ source for the author of the FG’s identity was either Polycarp of or Papias of .102 Both disseminated this John’s teaching to others, including Irenaeus; therefore, Irenaeus may have inherited the tradition that this John authored the FG from either or both of them. However, the

100 Barrett, according to John, 87-88 101 See Barrett, according to John, 88; Garvie, Studies in the Fourth, 215-217 who agree that although Irenaeus is generally trustworthy, there is a reason to be critical. 102 See Westcott, according to John, lxii-lxv; Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” 236; Garvie, Studies of the Fourth, 214; Barrett, according to John, 83-88, 105-106; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 26-27; Schnackenburg, John, 78-81; Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 98-99; Morris, John, 16, see also n43; Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 51-67, esp 62-65. Only a few scholars maintain that is it uncertain whether Irenaeus received his FG tradition from one of these three sources, see Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 33-44. Irenaeus also had other sources who he labels as “elders”, a term which he generally uses to denote a disciple of the apostles (Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 4.5.1; 5.30.1; 5.33.3; 5.36.1-2), and some of these elders were hearers of John, the disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 5.33.3). For a list of passages in which Irenaeus appeals to an older authority see Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891).

28 transfer from Polycarp to Irenaeus of this tradition is not without difficulties; namely, nothing in Irenaeus’ discussion on Polycarp connects John, the disciple of the Lord, with the FG.103 Despite this difficulty, a survey of the texts in which Irenaeus discusses

Polycarp shows that it is still possible that Irenaeus learned this tradition from him.

Below we analyze Adv. Haer. 3.3.4, Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus (Hist. eccl. 5.20.1-8), and

Irenaeus’ letter to Victor of Rome (Hist. eccl. 5.24.11-18).104

In Adv. Haer. 3.3.4 Irenaeus claims to be a witness to the facts that Polycarp was intimately acquainted with the apostles’ teaching, and that Polycarp was a disciple of

John, the disciple of the Lord. In the broader context, Irenaeus’ purpose is to counter the heretical claim that the apostles passed down hidden mysteries (Adv. Haer. 3.3.1-3). He does so by showing that Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, testified to the apostles’ true teaching; a fact that Irenaeus himself witnessed in his youth. According to Irenaeus

Polycarp was instructed by apostles, was appointed bishop by apostles, and was faithful to teach what he learned from the apostles (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4).

Furthermore, Irenaeus describes Polycarp as John, the disciple of the Lord’s, disciple.

Irenaeus gives an example of the horror that John, the disciple of the Lord, held towards

Cerinthus, followed by an example of the horror Polycarp held towards Marcion.

Irenaeus then comments on these examples, saying, “Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corruptors of the truth.”105 Irenaeus has generalized from these examples to make a

103 Kennedy, “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel,” 236. 104 Irenaeus’ reference to Polycarp in Adv. Haer. 5.3.4 is analyzed in the discussion on Papias and Irenaeus. Furthermore, note that there are several occasions in Adv. Haer. where Irenaeus mentions ones who came before him without giving the name to who he has in mind (E.g., Adv. Haer. 1. Preface. 2; 4.32.1). Typically, Pothinus (the bishop of Lyons before Irenaeus), Polycarp, or Papias are suggested as possibilities. 105 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.3.4 (ANF 1:416).

29 statement about apostles and their disciples, therefore, himself asserting that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle, John, the disciple of the Lord.

In his letter to Florinus, Irenaeus also testifies that he knew Polycarp and that

Polycarp knew apostles as well as John, the disciple of the Lord. Irenaeus wrote to

Florinus to address Florinus' defense of the idea that God was the Author of Evil (Hist. eccl. 5.20.1). Irenaeus points out to Florinus that the presbyters “who were companions of the apostles” did not teach Florinus such doctrines (Hist. eccl. 5.20.4). Irenaeus specifies Polycarp as such a presbyter who knew the apostles from his own remembrance, while he was a boy in lower Asia, of Polycarp’s teaching (Hist. eccl. 5.20.5-7).

Furthermore, Irenaeus remembers that Polycarp recounted his discourses with a John who had seen the Lord (Hist. eccl. 5.20.6).

Finally, in his letter to Victor, the bishop of Rome, Irenaeus again connects

Polycarp with the apostles as well as John, the disciple of the Lord. Irenaeus’ sent a letter to Victor defending the right of churches who celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on a different day and in a different manner than the Church in Rome (Hist. eccl. 5.24.11-18).

Irenaeus uses Polycarp's tradition as in the example, and says that Polycarp had always observed the tradition with “John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated…”106 That Polycarp regularly observed this feast with John, the disciple of the Lord, and other apostles emphasize the quality of relationship that he had with them.

Based on the above survey, it is plausible that Polycarp was Irenaeus’ authority for his tradition that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG:107 Irenaeus claims that

106 Hist. eccl. 5.24.16 (NPNF 1:243-244). 107 For a scholar who thinks Polycarp was Irenaeus’ authority, see Westcott, according to John, lxiii.

30 he knew Polycarp and that Polycarp was a disciple of John, the disciple of the Lord.

However, one should consider two arguments against this conclusion. First, Polycarp never mentions John, the disciple of the Lord, in connection with the FG. Moreover,

Polycarp may not have even known of the FG for Irenaeus never connects Polycarp with it, nor does Polycarp mention it in his Epistle to the Philippians.108 Secondly, some scholars question the accuracy of Irenaeus’ memory of Polycarp’s life. Irenaeus’ claims that others can trust his memory of Polycarp’s customs because “…what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it.”109 Barrett agrees with Irenaeus that a child's memory may be vivid; however, its accuracy can still be questioned.110 Indeed, one's ability to catch nuance and make distinctions continues to develop into adulthood, so Irenaeus as a teenager could easily have overlooked a distinction between two Johns, especially if both were referred to as disciples of the Lord (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4).

Irenaeus’ Authorities: Papias

Papias is also a promising candidate to be Irenaeus’ source for the tradition that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG. However, Eusebius’ silence would suggest otherwise: Eusebius does not record Papias’ words about the FG, despite having the motivation to do so. This silence suggests that Papias likely did not record any material

108 When faced with this problem, some scholars appeal to Polycarp’s knowledge of 1 John (Pol. Phil. 7.1) as a fact that suggests he knew the FG (Westcott, according to John, lxiii; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 35); even so, not all scholars are convinced that Polycarp’s knowledge of the FG follows (Barrett, according to John, 88). 109 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.20.6 (ANF 1:238). 110 Barrett, according to John, 87-88.

31

(quotations or traditions) about the FG or its author, and, therefore, could not be Irenaeus’ source for his traditions about its author.111

Scholars have constructed solutions for Eusebius’ silence,112 but they have not developed the possibility that Papias indeed recorded material about the FG, but Eusebius rejected Papias’ FG material. A solution following this reasoning is: Papias recorded FG material in his Expositions, but Eusebius was silent about this material because it included the Apostle John’s martyrdom. This solution excludes the possibility that

Irenaeus learned from Papias that the Apostle John authored the FG, but not the possibility that he learned from Papias that John, the disciple of the Lord authored the

FG, which he interpreted as the Apostle John on other grounds.

Papias’ Use and Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel

The first component of the purposed solution to Eusebius’ silence is that Papias’ writings included FG material. The problem with this proposition, apart from Eusebius’ silence, is that Papias’ extant fragments do not mention the FG. However, two documents provide evidence that Papias’ Expositions did include material about the FG: the anti-

Marcionite Prologue to John and Papias’ Expositions themselves.

The anti-Marcionite Prologue to John may contain an accurate tradition that Papias discussed the FG in his Expositions (c. 130-140 A.D.), The Prologue to John reads,

111 See Lightfoot, “Supernatural Religion: II. The Silence of Eusebius,” The Contemporary Review 25 (1874):169-188. 112 For example, Westcott explains that Eusebius was silent because his purpose was to discuss the disputed writings, not the acknowledged books (Westcott, according to John, lxiv; Carson, John, 27). Streeter conjectures that Eusebius overlooked Papias’ references to the FG because Papias called them the ‘Memoirs of the Elders’ (Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins [New York: Macmillan, 1925], 447-9). However, surely Eusebius would have recognized the overlap in material with the FG.

32

The Gospel of John was published and delivered to the churches by John while he was still in the body, as a man of Hierapolis, Papias, John’s dear disciples, has related in his five exegetical books. He wrote down the gospel at John’s dictation. But the heretic Marcion was thrust out by John, after being censured by him for his contrary opinions. He has carried writings or letters to him from brethren in Pontus.113

The Prologue to John clearly states that Papias recorded the tradition that a John published and distributed the FG. However, the Prologue may be late, and it does contain anachronistic details, both of which diminish the worth of its testimony. Concerning the date Adolf Harnack placed the Prologues between 160 and 180 A.D.,114 but Engelbert

Gutwenger critiqued Harnack’s work and concluded that there is no reason to date the

Prologue before 300 A.D.115 In addition to this late date, the Prologue’s anachronistic details (e.g., John condemning Marcion) cause some scholars to judge that the whole testimony is historically worthless.116

Despite these difficulties, most scholars agree that the Prologue to John still contains some historical value;117 Gutwenger, for example, holds that the Prologue’s tradition that

118 Papias commented on the FG is possibly true. In support, Gutwenger tentatively offers

113 As translated by F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 9. 114 Engelbert Gutwenger, “The anti-Marcionite Prologues,” Theological Studies 7 (1946): 393. Gutwenger explains that Adolf Harnack builds on Dom Donatien De Bruyne’s thesis that the prologues “were written shortly after the Marcionite crisis” to determine these dates. For De Bruyne’s work see Donatien De Bruyne. “Les plus anciens prologues des évangiles,” Revue Benedictine (1928): 193- 214. 115 Harnack thought that Marcion did not believe John wrote the FG; however, Gutwenger argues that it was Marcion’s disciples, not Marcion, who rejected Johannine authorship. Therefore, there is no reason to date the prologue to John before 300 A.D. (Gutwenger, “anti-Marcionite Prologues,” 408). Gutwenger investigates each prologue individually to find its date and origin (Ibid., 402-409). For those who agree with a late date see Schnackenburg, John, 82; Carson, John, 27. For an early date see Keener, John, 99; Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1978), 69; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 36-37. 116 For example, Ben Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 369n49; Schnackenburg, John, 83. 117 Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 36; Smalley, John, 69; Carson, John, 27; Keener, John, 99; Barrett, according to John, 96. 118 Gutwenger, “anti-Marcionite Prologues,” 406, who refers to Hist. eccl. 3.39.14-16 as evidence that Papias worked with John “the Elder”. Carson and Bruce also hold that Papias commented on the FG

33 a statement by Agapius of Manbig concerning the twelfth year of Hadrian’s reign,

“About that time an eminent teacher lived at Manbig, author of several treatises. He wrote five treatises about the gospel. In one treatise about the gospel of John he narrates….”119 Furthermore, the Prologue claims to receive the tradition that Papias wrote about the FG from Papias’ writings themselves, which is plausible because Papias’

Expositions were known in the 4th century (Hist. eccl. 3.39).

The anti-Marcionite Prologue to John plausibly contains a reliable tradition that

Papias discussed the FG to some degree in his Expositions. In addition, features of

Papias’ Expositions suggest he relied on the FG and strengthen the veracity of the tradition in the Prologue to John.

Two features of Papias’ Expositions betray his reliance on the FG: Papias’ list of apostles and his use of the phrase τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν. Papias lists the apostles in this order: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4).

Two aspects of this list are relevant. First, three of the first four apostles named –

Andrew, Philip, and Thomas – receive a more prominent role in the FG than in the synoptics.120 For example, in the Synoptics, Philip and Thomas are only mentioned in the list of the Twelve, but in John both provide insight into Jesus’ identity: Andrew says,

“We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote…” (Jn

(Carson, John, 27; Bruce, John, 9), although Sanders has reservations (Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 36, see also n3). 119 Quoted in Gutwenger, “anti-Marcionite Prologues,” 406. Gutwenger notes that “Agapius mistakes Hierapolis in Phrygia for Manbig, Hierapolis in Syria” (Ibid, n32). Using a text questionable historicity to support another of questionable historicity has problems that Gutwenger recognizes Gutwenger, “anti- Marcionite Prologues,” 406. 120 Thomas plays a significant role in three scenes (Jn 11:1-16, 14:1-12, 20:24-28) and is mentioned in Jn 21:2, and Philip in four scenes (Jn 1:43-51, 6:1-15, 12:20-26, 14:1-11). Andrew’s activity in Mark equals his activity in John but is scant in Matthew and Luke. This argument is based on Lightfoot’s argument that “the names which [Papias] places at the head of the list of authorities are those of the Apostles known to us from the Fourth Gospel and from this alone, Andrew, Philip, Thomas…” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 69). What Lightfoot means by “known to us from the Fourth Gospel and from this alone” is puzzling because Andrew, Philip, and Thomas are mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

34

1.45), and Thomas confesses, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20.28). Secondly, the first three apostles to appear in Papias’ list, in order, are: Andrew, Peter, and Philip. Papias seems to mimic the FG here, because Andrew, Peter, and Philip are also the first three apostles to appear in it, and in that order (Jn 1:35-51).121 Besides Papias’ list of apostles,

Papias’ choice to describe the apostles as τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν rather than ἀποστόλοι suggests that he was influenced by the FG (see the same discussion on Irenaeus).

Papias likely recorded traditions about the FG, as evidenced in the anti-Marcionite

Prologue to John and Papias’ Expositions. However, Eusebius’ silence still stands in the way of this conclusion.

Eusebius’ Silence

The most formidable objection against the claim that Papias recorded FG material in his Expositions is Eusebius’ silence:122 Eusebius does not report that Papias used the FG or that he passed down traditions concerning it even when Eusebius describes Papias’ use of canonical writings (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16) and knowledge of Gospel composition (Hist. eccl. 3.39.14-15). If Papias used the FG, then Eusebius’ silence demands an explanation, and solutions have been offered.123

Westcott explains Eusebius’ silence by reasoning that Eusebius only would have recorded Papias’ references to the FG if they were especially interesting. This is so because Eusebius was not concerned with “collect[ing] references to the acknowledged

121 Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 16. 122 For other objections see Macgregor, John, lix-lx; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 36, n3. 123 Lightfoot combats Eusebius’ silence by surveying Eusebius’ practice of quoting other authors. He shows that if we only knew of Irenaeus’ writings from Eusebius, then we would think Irenaeus ignored Acts and Paul; however, this is not true. In the same way, one cannot say Papias did not discuss the FG because of Eusebius’ silence (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 65-66). See also Streeter, The Four Gospels, 447- 9; Macgregor, John, lx).

35 books.”124 However, Westcott has misinterpreted Eusebius because Eusebius states in his introduction to book three of Hist. eccl. that he is concerned with discussions about both the disputed and acknowledged books; he says, “I shall be careful to show…what

[ecclesiastical writers] have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.3).125 Therefore, Westcott’s explanation is unsatisfactory because any discussion about the FG by Papias, especially about its author, would have fit Eusebius’ purpose.

Another solution to consider is that Eusebius was silent about Papias’ FG material because he rejected its content, specifically, Papias’ tradition that the Apostle John was martyred. Philip of Side (w. 430 A.D.) claims that Papias recorded the Apostle John’s martyrdom, and this testimony along with further evidence for John’s martyrdom is discussed at length below. Here, it is relevant to observe that if Philip is correct, then

Eusebius would likely reject such a tradition because it would be an anomaly to the ubiquitous tradition that the Apostle John authored the FG. Specifically, Papias’ report of

John’s martyrdom runs contradictory to Irenaeus’ tradition that the Apostle John survived until Trajan and authored the FG (Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5, 3.1.1). We should expect that

Eusebius would trust Irenaeus over Papias because Eusebius is critical of Papias’ intellectual abilities,126 but he thinks Irenaeus is trustworthy and a paragon of

124 Westcott, according to John, lxiv. Carson similarly argues that Eusebius’ silence is irrelevant because Eusebius’ “stated purpose” was to discuss the disputed writings, not to provide references to acknowledged books (Carson, John, 27). 125 Further, Eusebius’ concern for discussions about the acknowledged books naturally explains his reference to Papias’ use of 1 John (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). Both Westcott and Carson wonder at Eusebius’ reference to Papias’ use of 1 John (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16) (Westcott, John, lxiv; Carson, John, 27n1). Carson refers to Westcott’s explanation that Eusebius might have broken his rule of not referring to the acknowledged books because “the Catholic Epistles formed an exceptional group of writings” (Westcott, John, lxiv). But, it seems that Westcott has misinterpreted Eusebius’ purpose which actually involved collecting references to the canonical books. 126 While discussing Papias’ views on the thousand year reign of Christ Eusebius says, “For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.13, NPNF 1:172).

36 carefulness.127 Papias’ unorthodox anomaly would make the orthodox Eusebius suspicious of Papias’ entire FG tradition and therefore decide to be silent concerning it.

If Papias wrote about the Apostle John’s martyrdom, then this provides a solution to

Eusebius’ silence to consider. This solution restores the possibility that Papias recorded material about the FG in his Expositions, and therefore that he could be the source for

Irenaeus’ traditions about its author. But, this solution also means that Irenaeus could not have identified John, the disciple of the Lord, with the Apostle John based on Papias.

Papias’ Account of the Apostle John’s Martyrdom

A case can and has been made that the Apostle John was martyred and that Papias recorded it.128 The primary evidence for such an account is a testimony from Philip of

Side.129 Mark 10:35-45 provides supporting evidence for Philip of Side’s testimony, and

Josephus’ account of James’ martyrdom provides circumstantial evidence.

127 Eusebius says of Irenaeus, “These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us, that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness” (Hist. eccl. 5.20.3, NPNF 1:238; cf. Hist. eccl. 3.23.2). Eusebius does challenge Irenaeus’ interpretation of Papias in Hist. eccl. 3.39. However, the point is that Eusebius has more trust in Irenaeus than in Papias, not that Eusebius views Irenaeus as infallible. 128 For an in-depth discussion of the evidence for the Apostle John's martyrdom and the arguments in favor of it see R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the revelation of St. John (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920), xlv-l; For a concise summary of the evidence for John’s Martyrdom and the arguments against their reliability see Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1966), 442. For others who argue against John’s martyrdom see C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 12; Strachan, Fourth Gospel, 90; and John A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley, First US Edition (Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone Books, 1985), 99-100. Evidence used to support John’s martyrdom which is not treated below is found in the Syriac , the Calendar of Carthage, and the two witnesses in Rev 11:3-11. For a discussion on these documents see Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 280-283. Those who argue in favor of John’s martyrdom fix the terminus post quem at 49 A.D. based on Acts 15, and the terminus ante quem at A.D. 68 based on Clement of Alexandria’s statement that the teaching of the apostles ends with Nero (Clement, Stromateis 7.17) (Charles, Revelation, xlix; Bacon, Gospel to the Hellenists, 30). 129 Note that Philip also claims that the Apostle John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (Philip of Side, Fr. 4.3). Based on this evidence, one could argue that the Apostle Joh n lived long enough to write the FG and then be martyred afterwards.

37

Philip of Side, while summarizing Papias’ Expositions,130 states that Papias wrote of

John the Apostle’s martyrdom:131

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine [τοῦ θεολόγου], and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew he included among the disciples of the Lord Aristion and a second John, whom also he called ‘The Elder.’ [He says] that some think that this John is the author of the two short and catholic Epistles, which are published in the name of John; and he gives as the reason that the primitive (fathers) only accept the first epistle. Some too have wrongly considered the Apocalypse also to be his (i.e. the Elder John’s) work. Papias too is in error about the Millennium, and from him Irenaeus also. Papias in his second book says that John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews [Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει, ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ θεολόγος καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν]. The aforesaid Papias stated on the authority of the daughters of Philip that Barsabas, who is also called Justus, when challenged by the unbelievers drank serpent’s poison in the name of the Lord, and was shielded from all harm. He makes also other marvellous statements, and particularly about the mother of Manaim who was raised from the dead. As for those who were raised from the dead by Christ, (he states) that they survived till the time of Hadrian.132

Scholars can be too skeptical toward the accuracy of Philip’s report that Papias discussed John the Apostle’s martyrdom. Two reasons that scholars doubt the accuracy of

130 Although Philip is likely engaging with Eusebius’ account of Papias (Common elements between Philips account of Papias and Eusebius’ are: a distinction between the Apostle John and the Elder John, the Elder John being the author of the apocalypse [Hist. eccl. 3.39.4-5], Papias influencing Irenaeus to err concerning the Millennium [Hist. eccl. 3.39.12-13], and the story of Justus who drinks poison, yet lives [see Hist. eccl. 3.39.9]), he probably had access to Papias’ Expositions as well because Philip reports aspects of Papias’ work that are missing from Eusebius: the controversy over the Elder’s two short epistles, the martyrdom’s of John and James, and accounts of those who had been raised by Christ. These additions suggest that Philip had read Papias’ Expositions himself, a likely suggestion in light of the breadth of Philip’s library (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.27 [NPNF 2:2168]). 131 The evidence from (Monachus) does not warrant a sustained discussion. George writes between 842 and 847 C.E., and only one of the twenty-seven manuscripts, Codex Coislinianus 134, includes John’s martyrdom. The other twenty-six report that John died peacefully in Ephesus. Schnackenburg suggests that this anomaly is an interpolation based on Philip of Side’s account (Schnackenburg, John, 87). Further, George references Origen’s commentary on Matthew to support John’s martyrdom; however, George has clearly misunderstood Origen who counted John’s exile as the fulfillment of Christ’s words in Mk 10:35-45 (Garvie, Beloved, 207). 132 Lightfoot and Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers in English, 530-531; J.B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers in Greek (London: Macmillan, 1891), 518–519.

38

Philip’s testimony are: a testimony from the Acts of John and Philip's accuracy as a historian.133

Some scholars reason that since the Acts of John (w. between 150 and 200 A.D) provides an early identification of with the Apostle John, and since John of Ephesus lived until the time of Trajan (Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4), therefore the

Apostle John lived until the turn of the 1st century and thus could not have been martyred by the Jews.134 However, using the testimony of the Acts of John in this way is spurious because scholars disagree about the date of the Acts of John; whether it should be dated to the mid and late second century or between the 3rd and 4th centuries.135 Furthermore, the consensus is shifting towards a late date;136 and thus probably does not testify to beliefs in the 2nd century.

Some doubt Philip’s witness to Papias’ discussion on the Apostle John’ martyrdom because they are skeptical of Philip’s accuracy as a historian.137 In particular,

Schnackenburg attempts to discredit Philip’s testimony by, first, summarizing Socrates

133 Strachan raises another doubt: Philip is mistaken because Acts 12:2 does not report that James and John were martyred at the same time (R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment, 3rd ed. [1941; repr., London: SCM Press, 1960], 88). However, scholars have recognized that Philip does not claim that they were martyred at the same time, see Charles, Revelation, xlvi; Robinson, The Priority of John, 99. For other doubts see Dodd, Historical Tradition, 13n2; Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 89. 134 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 107-8. 135 Scholars who hold to an early date: Barrett, according to John, 86; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 39. Scholars who hold to a late date: Schnackenburg, John, 85. 136 According to Elliot although some scholars argue for a second-century date, “modern scholars tend to agree that there is no firm evidence that the Acts of John was known before Eusebius.” (J.K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, [Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993], 306). More recently P.J. Lalleman has argued for a date between 125 and 150 C.E. (P.J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism [Leuven: Peeters, 1998], 270); whereas, Jan Bremmer argues for a date between 200 and 250 A.D. (Jan N. Bremmer, “The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, ed. by Jan Bremmer, vol. 6 of Studies on early Christian apocrypha [Leuven: Peeters, 2001], 153). 137 Besides for Schnackenburg, Barrett says that Philip was not an accurate historian (Barrett, according to John, 87), and Lightfoot says that Philip “…was a notoriously pretentious and careless writer” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 95).

39

Scholasticus’ (b. 379 C.E.) appraisal of Philip as a complaint that he did not compile his work “very conscientiously.” And, secondly, Schnackenburg construes Philip’s anachronistic application of the sobriquet ὁ θεολόγος to John as evidence of Philip’s unconscientiousness.138

Socrates’ appraisal of Philip is not as critical of Philip as Schnackenburg intimates.

According to Schnackenburg Socrates critiques Philip for not being a ‘very conscientious’ historian; however, Socrates did not believe Philip was a generally slack or careless scholar. Rather, Socrates reports the opposite when he says that Philip

“labored assiduously in literature” and that he made “very considerable literary attainments.”139 Granted, Socrates does critique Philip for forcing “irrelevant details into connection with his subject,” for being grandiloquent, and for using “wearisome tautology,” 140 but these charges do not discredit Philip’s accuracy as a historian. Only once does Socrates question Philip’s abilities as a historian; he says,

All I have to add is, that he has confounded the chronological order of the transactions he describes: for after having related what took place in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, he immediately goes back to the times of the bishop Athanasius; and this sort of thing he does frequently.141

Here, Socrates critiques Philip for confusing the chronological order of the events he describes. So, a mistake that Philip might make is discussing Papias’ Expositions after

Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses. But, this critique does not discredit Philip’s summary of

Papias, because Philip’s clumsiness with the chronological order does not imply that he has unreliably reported the contents of the chronologically misplaced event or text; and

Socrates never charges Philip with such negligence.

138 Schnackenburg, John, 87. 139 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.27 (NPNF 2:168). 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid.

40

After Schnackenburg appeals to Socrates, he interprets Philip’s use of the sobriquet

“Theologian” for John as evidence of Philip’s unconscientiousness: Philip is reporting

Papias’ discussion on John’s martyrdom, but the Apostle John was not called “the

Theologian” in Papias’ time.142 Schnackenburg’s critique indicts Philip’s indifference about being anachronistic and works to label Philip as untrustworthy. However, this critique has force only if Philip intended to report that Papias called John ὁ θεολόγος.

But, Philip is not quoting Papias; rather, he is briefly summarizing any interesting or controversial topics that Papias wrote about for an audience who knows the Apostle John as ὁ θεολόγος. Thus, the charge that Philip is being anachronistic or unconscientious is inaccurate.

Thus far, the discussion of Philip of Side’s report that Papias discussed the Apostle

John’s martyrdom has focused on a defense of Philip’s testimony. But, Philip’s report does not stand alone, both Mark 10:32-45 and Josephus’ account of James’ martyrdom strengthen its historicity.

In Mark 10:35-45 Mark records that the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus to grant them the honor of sitting at his right and left hand in his glory,

38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink,143 or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized [τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε]. 40 “But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.

142 Schnackenburg, John, 87. 143 Matthew’s account ends Jesus’ words here, omitting baptism from his response. This redaction suggests that Matthew thought the cup metaphor alone was sufficient to communicate the trials that James ,B, D, L, Z, and Δ. However ,א and John will face. Nestle’s text for Matthew is supported by the Uncials the Uncials C and W include το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι. Metzger suggests the latter added the additional text “to assimilate the passage to the parallel in Mk 10.38f” (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002], 42).

41

The other ten become indignant at this request, and Jesus uses this moment to teach,

44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many [δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν]. If Jesus’ metaphors of the “cup” and “baptism” in Mark 10:38-39 refers to James and

John’s martyrdom, then this gives credibility to Philip’s claim that Papias spoke of the

Apostle John’s martyrdom.144 The literary context of Mark 10:35-45 and Jesus’ later use of τὸ ποτήριον in Gethsemane support this interpretation.

The literary context of Mark 10:35-45 focuses on Jesus’ death, suggesting that Mark interpreted Jesus’ ‘cup’ and ‘baptism’ metaphors to refer to Jesus, James, and John’s violent deaths. In Mark 10:32-34 Jesus and his disciples are on the road to Jerusalem when Jesus predicts his death for the third time, marking the culmination of three such predictions.145

In Mk 10:35-45, the scene has not shifted, but Jesus and his disciples remain on the road to Jerusalem; therefore, Jesus’ prediction in vv. 32-34 can be interpreted as introducing the theme of suffering and death into vv. 35-45. Again, Jesus predicts his death during his concluding exhortation in Mk 10:35-45, the focal point of the chreia,146

144 Charles thinks that Jesus clearly predicts the martyrdoms of John and James (Charles, Revelation, xlv). Evans interprets the cup as a cup of suffering and that it perhaps was intended to refer to the martyrdom of James and John (Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, vol. 34b [WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001], 117). R.T. France interprets the cup as a cup of suffering as well, fulfilled in the martyrdom of James, but notes that it is uncertain how it is fulfilled in John (R.T. France, The : A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 417). However, Keener and Dodd do not think that an argument for martyrdom based on this scripture is strong (Keener, John, 104; Dodd, Historical Tradition, 12n2), and Morris thinks one is worthless (Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 282).Others deny any element of prediction, and have construed Jesus’ use of “cup” and “baptism” in 10:38-39 to mean something less severe than martyrdom, such as the suffering that all of Jesus’ disciples should expect (Schnackenburg, John, 86-87; Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship, [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975], 1975, 90. 145 Evans, Mark, 106. The first occurs immediately after Peter’s confession (Mk 8:31) and the second occurs as Jesus is passing through Galilee (Mk. 9:30). 146 The chreia is an anecdote reporting a saying, action, or both, of someone by expanding and developing the meaning and ending in an exhortation (George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical

42

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). Jesus’ cup and Baptism metaphor are sandwiched between the culmination of predictions Jesus makes about his own death and the climax of the pericope in Jesus’ death. This suggests that Jesus is using “cup” and “baptism” to speak metaphorically about suffering and death, and by extending the metaphors to James and John, to predict their martyrdoms.

Jesus’ use of ποτήριον in Gethsemane to refer to death suggests that the cup metaphor in Mk 10:38-39 should be interpreted to communicate suffering and death.147

Immediately before Jesus’ betrayal and death he prays, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup [ποτήριον] from Me; yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mk 14:36). Adding to this observation from the immediate context, Jesus’ use of

ποτήριον here has parallels to the cup of wrath in LXX 51:17 and 51:22.148 The

Rhetoric [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994], 202-204; Richard Burridge, “The Gospels and Acts,” in The Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. – A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter [New York: Brill, 1997], 518; D.A. Russell, “Rhetoric and Criticism,” in Ancient Literary Criticism: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, ed. Andrew Laird [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006], 279). Kennedy notes that something analogous to the chreia is found in the New Testament (George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, Studies in Religion [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984], 22-23). Further, many of Mark’s pericopes strongly resemble chreia (See Ben Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament [Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009], 24-31. For further discussion of the rhetorical characteristics of Mark see Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 104-107; Richard A. Burridge, The Gospels and Acts, 507-532 esp. 517-521; Burton L. Mack and Vernon K. Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989) who gives a thorough juxtaposition of Chreia with Gospel literary units. 147 τὸ ποτήριον also occurs in Mk 14.23 where Jesus and his disciples literally drink from the same cup. However, the cup in Mk 10.38-39 probably does not refer to the Passover cup because the language Jesus uses in 10.38, “are you able to drink the cup [δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον]…” is not language one would use to describe drinking from a Passover cup; rather language similar to “worthy” would be appropriate. On the other hand, the language of “able” fits well with the Gethsemane cup of suffering, travails, and ultimately death. Neither Mt 26:39 nor Lk 22:42 contain divergences significant to this discussion. 148 Evans, Mark, 413. Furthermore, Evans observes that the “cup of death” in the Targums “is the closest parallel to the words of Jesus” (Evans, Mark, 117).

43

Gethsemane cup clearly refers to death, and scholars have made the connection between it and the cup in Mk 10:38-39.149

In Mk 10.38-39, when Jesus identifies the “cup” which James and John will drink with the cup he will drink, he is plausibly referring to James and John’s violent deaths.

This interpretation lends support to the tradition that the Apostle John was martyred, and

James’, the brother of Jesus, martyrdom provides a suitable occasion for it to occur.

James’ martyrdom account, as recorded by Josephus, implies that other leaders150 of the Jerusalem church were martyred with James, and thus provides circumstantial evidence for John’s martyrdom.151 Josephus reports that while Judea was in transition between procurators, Ananus, the current high-priest, seized the opportunity to act against the Christian leaders in Jerusalem. Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin and “brought before them…James, and some others [καί τινας ἑτέρους]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…”

(Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1). 152 If murdering ‘the others’ was to have any real effect on the movement, then they were likely leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. John, a pillar of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 2:9), would be a prime candidate.

Although Philip of Side made mistakes as a historian, the level of scholarly skepticism towards the content of events or other texts he recorded is unwarranted. A defense can be made against this skepticism and supporting evidence for Philip's account

149 France, Mark, 585; Evans, Mark, 117; cf. 413. 150 In Hegesippus’ account, James is the sole martyr (Hist. eccl. 2.23.3-19). But, Hegesippus’ account focuses strictly on James (e.g., his freedom to enter the holy place, his just character, his testimony about Jesus), and details not about James, therefore, are omitted. 151 Bacon, Gospel of the Hellenists, 26-28; Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 104. Schnackenburg, however, thinks that an attempt to connect John’s death with James’ martyrdom is arbitrary (Schnackenburg, John, 87). 152 Flavius Josephus. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, ed. William Whiston (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

44 of John's martyrdom exists, making John's martyrdom plausible. Although there are not a plethora of supporting evidence, one can observe with Streeter that “the wonder is that any evidence at all should survive of a tradition apologetically so inconvenient as that of

John’s early death.”153

In sum, Although Papias’ Expositions likely included FG material, Irenaeus probably did not learn that the Apostle John authored the FG from Papias if Papias recorded the

Apostle John’s martyrdom. The evidence discussed above makes the Apostle John’s martyrdom plausible. Further, John’s martyrdom has explanatory scope in that it gives a plausible explanation for Eusebius’ silence. However, Papias’ record of the Apostle

John’s martyrdom does not exclude the possibility that Irenaeus learned that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG from Papias.

Polycrates of Ephesus

The final piece of evidence in Asia Minor comes from Polycrates of Ephesus’ letter to

Victor of Rome (c. 195 C.E.). In it, Polycrates defends Asia Minor’s Passover practice,

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the . Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus.154

Since Polycrates described his John as the one “who reclined upon the bosom of the

Lord,” then he likely believed his John was the BD, and, therefore, the author of the FG.

153 Streeter, the Four Gospels, 435. 154 Hist. eccl. 5.24.2-4 (NPNF 1:242). See also Hist. eccl. 3.31.3.

45

Identifying Polycrates’ John as the Apostle John or the Elder John are both plausible options. Two issues one has to deal with in judging between the two options are whether

Polycrates means his high-priestly description155 of John metaphorically or literally156 and whether or not Polycrates has conflated a John who authored the FG with the Apostle

John.

Before we address these issues, it is informative to note the similarities between

Polycrates and Irenaeus’ description of the John who authored the FG.157 Both “reclined upon the bosom of the Lord” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4); both John’s resided in Ephesus (Adv.

Haer. 3.1.1; 3.3.4); and both were champions for the Ephesian observance of the

Passover. These similarities suggest that Irenaeus and Polycrates’ share a common

Ephesian tradition about this John. 158

To address the first issue, Epiphanius provides evidence from the late 4th century for a literal understanding of the term high-priest, whereas Hippolytus and the Didache159 provide evidence from the 3rd and 2nd centuries for a metaphorical use rooted in 1 Peter and Revelation.

155 Although John is only called a priest by Polycrates, most interpret priest to mean high-priest because Polycrates adds that he wore the petalon. For a description of priestly dress including the petalon see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 3.172-178; Josephus, Jewish War 5.228-237. 156 Richard Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 47. 157 Both Polycrates and Irenaeus also provide extra details about this John. Irenaeus’ extra details include: this John published a Gospel while he was in Ephesus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), he remained there until the time of Trajan (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4), and he is “the disciple of the Lord. For Polycarp’s part, he adds that this John “was both a witness and a teacher”, and that he was also a priest who “wore the sacerdotal plate.” 158 Indeed, Polycrates and Irenaeus may be using the same tradition to describe John, and since Irenaeus interprets the John of this tradition as the Apostle it might be evidence for the fact that this tradition taught this John was the apostle. But, this study focuses on the possibility that Irenaeus came to believe that John, the disciple of the Lord, was the apostle from the gnostics, rather than his orthodox predecessors. 159 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 47.

46

Epiphanius believed that James, the brother of Jesus, historically served as a high- priest, qualifying him to be the first bishop.160 Epiphanius precedes his discussion on

James by tracing the history of the high-priestly office in the church. He explains that

David’s throne was transferred to the Church through Jesus and has a kingly and priestly rank (Epiphanius, Panarion 29.3.1). This throne has a kingly rank because Jesus physically descended from David, and a high-priestly rank “because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the office of the high priests since James…was immediately made the first bishop” (Epiphanius, Pan. 29.3.7-9).161 Since James succeeded Jesus as the first bishop, Epiphanius endeavors to show James’ kingly and priestly ranks as well. It is in this context that Epiphanius comments on James’ priestly activity:

And moreover I find that [James] was of Davidic descent because of being Joseph's son, and that he was born a nazirite—for he was Joseph's first-born, and (thus) consecrated. And I have found further that he also functioned as (high)-priest in the ancient priesthood. Thus he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as scripture says the Law directed the high priests to do. For many before me—Eusebius, Clement and others— have reported this of him. He was allowed to wear the priestly tablet besides, as the trustworthy authors I mentioned have testified in those same historical writings (Epiphanius, Panarion 29.4.2-4)162

Epiphanius argues that James was literally a high-priest and, therefore, fulfills the priestly rank to sit on David's throne. He even appeals to the reliability of his sources [οἱ

προειρημένοι ἀξιόπιστοι] to substantiate the historical reality of his claim.

Although Epiphanius believed that James literally functioned as a high-priest, in the

3rd and 2nd centuries the term was used in a metaphorical sense by Hippolytus and in the

160 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 41-50, esp. 45. 161 Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books I (Sects 1-46), Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 2nd ed., vol. 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 124-125. 162 Ibid., 125.

47

Didache: Christian high-priests were Christians who occupied an important leadership role in the Church. Hippolytus (c. 170 to 236 C.E) used the term ‘high-priesthood’ to speak of an office that the apostles held and one which their successors inherited,163 “But we, as being [the Apostles’] successors, and as participators in this grace, high- priesthood, and office of teaching…”164 When Hippolytus says that the successors of the apostles participate in their high-priesthood, he surely cannot mean that they all functioned as actual high-priests at some point. Rather, his use of high-priesthood is better explained as a title that refers to a position of leadership. Furthermore, the Didache

(c. 120 C.E.) uses the term high-priest in the same way:165 “Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests.”166

This metaphorical use of the term high-priest to refer to Christian leaders may be based on the teaching that all Christian believers are priests. 1 Pet 2:5 reads, “…you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood…”, and Rev 1:6 reads, “…He has made us a to be a kingdom, priests to His

God…”167 The church made a logical step when they distinguished their leaders as high priests from Christians who are priests.168

163 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 47. 164 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 1 Prooemium, ANF 5:510; italics mine. 165 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 47. 166 Didache 13.3 (ANF 7:381). 167 See also Rev. 5:10; 20:6. 168 An implication of the proposition that Polycrates is speaking metaphorically about John’s high- priestly activities is that he may be speaking metaphorically about John reclining on the bosom of Jesus. However, there is no evidence for this use of ‘reclining on the bosom of Jesus’ as there is for the metaphorical use of ‘high-priest’.

48

If Polycrates’ John actually wore the petalon, then he was probably from a priestly family,169 and, therefore, he was not the apostle whose father was a fisherman, but another John (the Elder?). However, Polycrates was probably speaking metaphorically when he described his John as a high-priest because he was writing in the same period that Christians understood the term high-priest metaphorically. In contrast evidence for a literal interpretation comes from Epiphanius in the 4th century who may have become bias in his concern to show how David’s throne has literally transferred to the Church.

To address the second issue, some scholars concede that Polycrates is speaking of the

Apostle John, but discredit him by suggesting that he conflated the John who authored the FG (the Elder) with the Apostle John, just as many suspect he has conflated the

Apostle Philip with .170 Polycrates’ description of the Apostle Philip who has renowned virgin daughters is similar to the description of Philip the Evangelist in Acts (Acts 21:8-9). So some suggest that Philip the Evangelist was promoted to the

Apostle because of the local patriotism of Hierapolis;171 an appealing conflation to

Polycrates since he was composing a letter to persuade. If Polycrates did conflate the two

Philip’s then it is possible that he also conflated the John who authored the FG with the

Apostle John; however, it is not evidence that Polycrates has done so.

In sum, it is plausible that Polycrates thought his John was the apostle. There are good reasons to accept a metaphorical interpretation of Polycrates’ high-priestly description of John, and Polycrates conflation of the Philip’s is not enough to show that he conflated a John with the apostle. Finally, Polycrates’ description of John has striking

169 Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 43-44 170 Schnackenburg, John, 81; Macgregor, John lx-lxi. 171 Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 43

49 similarities with Irenaeus’, which shows consistency within the Asia Minor tradition about the John who authored the FG.

In sum, between 180 to 200 C.E. proto-Orthodox Christian writers from all over the

Roman empire attributed the FG to a John, probably the Apostle John rather than the

Elder John. This is most clear with Irenaeus whose description of this John is collaborated by Polycrates of Ephesus, pointing to a shared tradition between the two writers. In general, the breadth of this belief and its coherence among proto-Orthodox

Christian writers during this period suggests that the belief that the Apostle John authored the FG is older than 180 C.E.; Irenaeus, or any another proto-Orthodox writer after 180

C.E. did not concoct this belief on their own.

Nonetheless, the history of this tradition is not as tidy as it may look on the surface.

Neither of Irenaeus’ potential sources for his tradition that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG – Polycarp and Papias – actually connect this John with the FG. Even so,

Polycarp, being this John’s disciple, was in a position to know if he wrote the gospel, and he may have taught the adolescent Irenaeus that this John did author the FG. However, it is not clear that Polycarp thought John, the disciple of the Lord, was the apostle, and

Irenaeus in his undeveloped mind may have failed to distinguish the two John’s.

Concerning Papias, although he also never connects John, the disciple of the Lord, with the FG, it is possible that Irenaeus learned that this John authored the FG from Papias’

Expositions. But again, Irenaeus could not have learned that this John was the apostle from Papias if Papias recorded the Apostle John’s martyrdom.

In the end, although the proto-Orthodox between 180 and 200 C.E. likely believe that the Apostle John authored the FG, it is not clear that their sources believed as much.

50

Furthermore, the study of how the proto-Orthodox between 100 and 180 C.E. treated the

FG in the next section suggests that they did not think it held apostolic authority.

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE BETWEEN 100 AND 180 C.E.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and Justin Martyr the discussion on the proto-

Orthodox use of the FG between 100 and 180 A.D. The discussion can be organized into three connected issues: Ignatius and Justin’s knowledge of the FG, their use of the FG, and whether they held the FG as authoritative or not. If one judges that a particular passage in either author is a quotation or allusion to the FG, then one can analyze how either used the material from the FG to discover if they used it authoritatively or not.

Scholars who affirm that the orthodox writers treat the FG as authoritative infer that those writers believed the FG was written by an apostle.172 On the other hand, some judge that the proto-Orthodox writers were hesitant and tentative to use the FG, and, therefore, infer that they did not believe that the FG holds apostolic authority.173 In contrast, it is clear that between 100 and 180 C.E. the gnostics, in particular the Valentinian gnostics, regarded the FG as an authoritative text.

Some scholars generalize from this gnostic attitude towards the FG to conclude that all Christendom between 100 and 180 C.E. regarded the FG as an authoritative text, and therefore written by an apostle. However, one cannot make this generalization because the attitude of the gnostics towards the FG is inconsistent with that of mainstream

172 This reasoning permeates Westcott’s treatment on the external evidence for the authorship of the FG from when it was written to A.D. 160, see lxi-lxvii; for a similar argument see Hendriksen, John, 25, 28. Keener acknowledges the scant use of the FG by Ignatius and Justin but argues that their lack of use does not necessarily mean they disapproved of the FG (Keener, John, 93-94). 173 J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), 31; Barrett, according to John, 94. For a similar perspective see also Macgregor, John, lv-lvi; Dodd, Tradition, 13; Sanders and Mastin, Fourth Gospel, 38-39.

51

Christianity. Between 100 and 180 C.E., the gnostics extensively engage with the FG as an authoritative text and believe that it was written by the Apostle John, a practice and belief which sharply contrasts with the proto-Orthodox who are tentative to use FG, implying that the proto-Orthodox did not believe it was authoritative nor written by an apostle.174 A juxtaposition of the two groups' attitudes toward the FG will highlight each groups sentiments more accurately.

The proto-Orthodox Use of the FG between 100 and 180 C.E.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and Justin Martyr are two proto-Orthodox writers who may have quoted or alluded to the FG. An analysis of their most explicit references to the

FG shows that both seem to engage with the FG, but provides no evidence that either thought the FG was authoritative or written by an apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch

The Epistles of Ignatius were written in 107 C.E. while he traveled from to his martyrdom in Rome.175 The strongest parallels between these epistles and the FG occur in

174 Charles Hill argues that most scholars hold to an orthodox Johannophobia paradigm (OJP) in their analysis of how the second-century proto-Orthodox viewed the FG (Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004]). This OJP is based on three theses that Hill attempts to dismantle in his monograph: first, the second-century proto-Orthodox were fearful and suspicious of the FG; second, the proto-Orthodox before c. 170 are silent concerning the FG; and finally, the gnostics were the first to accept the FG (Beth Stovell, review of The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, by Charles E. Hill, Journal of Greco-roman Christianity and Judaism, [2009], R39-R42l Kyle Keefer, review of The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, by Charles E. Hill, RBL [2005]). Hill’s argument that is most relevant to this study is the evidence he provides of writers who use the FG before c.170. A point of engagement between this work and Hill’s might be whether that evidence warrants the claim that the proto-Orthodox regarded the FG as authoritative. 175 Joseph Lightfoot, and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 97.

52 the Epistle to the Romans 7.3 and the Epistle to the Philadelphians 7.1.176 These parallels are probably allusions and indicate that Ignatius was acquainted with the FG or traditions behind it.

The Epistles to the Romans 7.3 provides a significant allusion to Jn 6:33, 51, and 53.

The relevant sentence can be broken down into two topics (a) the Flesh of Christ, which alludes to John 6:33, 51; and (b) the blood of Christ which may allude to John 6:53.

Romans 7.3 (a) “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David;”

John 6:33 (cf. v. 32) “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

John 6:51, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven…And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (ESV)

Romans 7.3 (b) “and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible”

John 6:53, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (ESV)

To the Romans 7.3 (b) parallels Jn 6:53 by adopting the concept of drinking Christ’s blood. However, Ignatius could have also learned this concept form the synoptics (Mk

14:22-25 cf. Mt 26:26-28; Lk 22:19-21), thus, it is uncertain whether Ignatius was influenced by the FG with regards to drinking Jesus' blood. To the Romans 7.3 (a) on the other hand, provides a distinct parallel with the FG; specifically, Ignatius agrees twice with John over the synoptics. First, the synoptics use the term σωμα to when Jesus compares his body to bread (Mk 14:22; Mt 26:26; Lk 22:19), whereas John records that

176 These allusions are provided by Westcott, John, lxii; Hendriksen, John, 26; Barrett, according to John, 93. For other parallels compare To the Ephesians 5.1 with Jn 17.20-26 and To the Magnesians 7.1 (cf. To the Philippians 7.1, “be imitators of Jesus Christ, as He Himself also was of His Father.”) with Jn 5.19.

53

Jesus uses σάρξ; Ignatius agrees with John and uses σάρξ. Secondly, Ignatius describes

Jesus’ flesh as the “bread of God”. This phrase is not found in the synoptics; however,

John uses “bread of God” in 6:33 to begin Jesus’ dialogue with a crowd (6:25-59). In Jn

6:51 Jesus then says he himself is this bread, and, in fact, the bread is his flesh. Positing

Ignatius' knowledge of the FG or knowledge of a tradition underlying John 6 is the best explanation for his use of σάρξ for Jesus’ flesh and the “bread of God” concept.

Ignatius’ Epistle to the Philadelphians 7.1 provides a strong allusion to John 3:8, and thus strengthens the probability that Ignatius knew of the FG or a tradition underlying it.

Philadelphians 7.1 “…the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knowest whence it cometh and where it goeth, and it searcheth out the hidden things.”

John 3:8, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sounds, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit”

The wording of the underlined clause in Ignatius is nearly verbatim with the FG,

Philadelphians 7.1 “γὰρ οιδεν πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει”

John 3:8 “ἀλλʼ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ

ὑπάγει”

The context in which Ignatius uses the phrase is responsible for the change in conjunction, the addition of the negative particle, and the shift from 3rd to 2nd person in

οἶδα: Ignatius’ statement is from the perspective of the Spirit and what the Spirit knows, whereas John’s statement is from the perspective of Nicodemus and what he does not know. These clauses do not occur in the synoptics, but only in the FG. Therefore,

Ignatius’ statement provides a clear allusion to a tradition underlying the FG, if not the

FG itself.

54

The above comparisons suggest that Ignatius was familiar with the FG or traditions that the author of the FG used,177 but these passages do not provide evidence that Ignatius held the FG to be authoritative or written by an apostle. Providing sparse references to the FG, does not imply Ignatius held the text as authoritative; one needs a stronger warrant to make that conclusion. Furthermore, even if we assumed that Ignatius regarded the FG as authoritative, his letter to the Ephesians suggest the author was not the

Apostle John. In this letter Ignatius claims an apostolic foundation for the Ephesian

Church and cites Paul as evidence, but not the Apostle John. If he knew that the Apostle

John authored the FG in Ephesus, then, as Macgregor observes, “what stronger claim for the community’s apostolic dignity could he have adduced?”178

Ignatius’ parallels to the FG found in these epistles suggest that he knew of the FG or of traditions underlying it; however, these parallels do not provide evidence that he regarded the FG as authoritative. Justin Martyr’s 1 Apology has even stronger intertextual relationships with the FG than Ignatius, but these references also do not suggest he thought the FG was authoritative.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (c. 114-165 C.E.) wrote in the mid-second century. His most promising parallel with the FG is found in his First Apology 61,179 and he also expresses concepts found in the FG in his other works. In addition, his pupil Tatian elevated the FG to the level of the Synoptics in his Diatesseron. But, when Justin's parallels to the FG are put in

177 Kenner does not think Ignatius used or referred to the FG in his epistles (Keener, John, 93). 178 Macgregor, John, liii; Barrett, according to John, 85. 179 The above allusion was found in Barrett, according to John, 94; He also points out parallels between Dialogue with Trypho 63 and Jn 1:13; Dial. 88 and Jn 1:20; and Dial. 91 and Jn 3.14.

55 the context of his entire corpus, it appears that Justin is hesitant to use any material from the FG, and when Tatian's Diatesseron is put in its historical context, it appears he may have been influenced by the Valentinian gnostics to elevate the FG to an authoritative position.

In 1 Apol. 61 Justin describes the initiation process for a Christian convert: after praying and fasting with other Christians for the remission of sins, the initiate is baptized.

To substantiate the practice of baptizing new converts, Justin alludes to Jesus’ words in

John 3:3-5:

1 Apology 61, “For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all”180

John 3:3-5, “Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

After Justin alludes to Jesus’ words, “Except ye be born again” he clarifies them by anticipating the natural question which Nicodemus asks, ‘how can one be born a second time’? He acknowledges that this notion is absurd, and explains that the second birth is baptism.

Justin’s allusion to John 3:3-5 is clear. The only way to deny this allusion is to surmise that Jesus’ apothegm “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of

God” circulated as an agraphon181 or was used in the baptismal liturgy.182 If Jesus’

180 Justin, 1 Apol. 61 (ANF 1:183). 181 Keener, John, 93. Keener suggests that because this is the only place where Justin quotes the FG, he might be citing an “agraphon from a pre-Johannine tradition or a subsequent tradition based on John”. 182 Osborn, Justin Martyr, 137.

56 apothegm was used in the baptismal liturgy, then answers explaining ‘how one can be born again’ would naturally form and circulate with the apothegm. On this theory, the author of the FG decided to express his answer through a dialogue between Jesus and

Nicodemus, but Justin takes a different path by appealing to Isaiah and apostolic tradition

(Justin, 1 Apol. 61).

On top of Justin’s allusion to the FG in 1 Apol. 61, at times he expresses the same concepts as the FG in other works.183 Barrett concludes that these literary similarities do not prove dependence,184 but Sanders holds that Justin Martyr did know the FG based on these similarities in expression.185 Indeed, Justin’s historical context inclines one to agree with Sanders. Justin lived for a while in Rome where he was martyred,186 and as a philosopher and apologist, he likely encountered his contemporary Valentinus and his followers who made thorough use of the FG, therefore exposing Justin to the text.

Although Justin displays knowledge of the FG in 1 Apol. 61, throughout his writings he is hesitant to use it, suggesting he did not regard it as authoritative. 1 Apol. 61 is the only occasion where Justin plausibly quotes the FG. Sanders believes that elsewhere

Justin uses the FG hesitantly, “Justin’s writings illustrate rather the first tentative use which was made of the FG by a proto-Orthodox writer, and this tentativeness makes it difficult to believe that Justin regarded the Fourth Gospel as Scripture or as the work of an apostle.”187 Furthermore, this tentative use of the FG contrasts with Justin's attitude

183 Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr (Tübingen: Mohr, 1973), 137. See these references for an enumeration of what Osborn calls, “coincidences of thought and expression.” 184 Barrett, according to John, 93. 185 Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 38. 186 Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 160. 187 Sanders, FG in the Early Church, 31; See Osborn, Justin Martyr, 137-138 for an alternative explanation.

57 towards texts he believes were written by an apostle, namely, the Synoptics which he refers to as ‘the memoirs of the apostles’.188

Notwithstanding this perceived tentativeness by modern scholars, the attitude of

Tatian, a disciple of Justin’s, toward the FG may suggest that Justin indeed viewed the

FG as authoritative. In his Diatessaron Tatian elevated the FG to the Synoptics’ level of authority. A plausible explanation for this reverence of the FG is that Tatian learned it from his master, Justin.

However, the historical context in which Tatian published his Diatessaron, a gospel harmony, suggests he may have included the FG because of a Valentinian influence.

Tatian probably did not publish the Diatessaron until after Justin’s death in c. 165 C.E., and his excommunication from the Church of Rome in c. 172 C.E.189 If Tatian interacted with the Valentinians during this seven-year gap, free from the cautions of Justin, then they may have impressed the authoritative nature of the FG upon him.

Indeed, Irenaeus’ writings provide evidence that Tatian was influenced by the

Valentinians. In Adv. Haer. 1.28.1 Irenaeus says that after Justin’s death Tatian became arrogant, leading him to compose “his own peculiar type of doctrine.” Irenaeus expands on this clause,

He invents a system of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication. But his denial of ’s salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself 190

188 Justin means the Gospels by the memoirs of the apostles, see 1 Apology 66. 189 Allan Menzies ed., “Introduction to the Diatessaron of Tatian,” The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the and Sedrach, the Testament of , the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, Vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 939. 190 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.28.1 (ANF 1:353).

58

The last sentence qualifies what Irenaeus means by “his own peculiar type of doctrine”. Tatian’s opinions on Adam were “due entirely to himself,” thus the earlier opinions on Aeons and marriage, although in some sense his own, were not due entirely to himself. Therefore, when Irenaeus writes that Tatian invented a system like the

Valentinians, he means that Tatian has been influenced by the Valentinian system, but modified it somehow. Through this interaction with the Valentinians during the years after Tatian’s death, until he published the Diatessaron, he may have come to regard the

FG as authoritative.

In sum, Ignatius plausibly knew of the FG, and Justin Martyr probably knew and was influenced by the FG. However, the evidence does not warrant the claim that either

Ignatius or Justin held the FG to be authoritative. Justin, in particular, seems hesitant to use the FG and he does not include it among ‘the memoirs of the apostles’. This hesitant attitude towards the FG is the opposite of the enthusiastic attitude toward it that is characteristic of the gnostics.

The Gnostic Use of the FG between 100 and 180 C.E.

In contrast to the proto-Orthodox writers between 100 to 180 C.E., the Sethian and

Valentinian gnostics produced literature with abundant references to and a clear intertextual relationship with the FG. The Valentinian Heracleon wrote a commentary on the FG, and Ptolemy’s exegesis of the FG’s prologue is preserved by Irenaeus. These practices suggest that the Valentinians regarded the FG as an authoritative text.

59

The Sethian Gnostics

The group of gnostics known as the Sethians are so named because they give prominence to Seth, Adam’s third son, from whom they claim direct decent.191 A reconstruction of the literary history of Sethian texts shows that The Apocryphon of John and Trimorphic Protennoia reached their final literary forms in the mid-second century, and a comparison with the FG shows that both texts have more intertextual relationships with the FG than Ignatius or Justin Martyr.

John Turner’s investigation into the literary history of Sethian Gnosticism helps us identify the Sethians texts which were produced between 100 and 180 C.E. Taylor’s reconstruction of the Sethian literature and its pre-compositional units can be organized into a timeline spanning from 100 to 150 C.E.: Before 100 C.E –The Sophia myth, The exegesis of Genesis 1-6, Spiritualized Sethian baptismal rite, and Other OT traditions; between 100 and 125 C.E. – The shorter recension of the Apocryphon of John, The first two compositional stages of Trimorphic Protennoia (prior to its Christianisation), and

Source B of the Apocalypse of Adam; between 125 and 150 C.E. – the Apocalypse of

Adam, the Hypostasis of the Archons, Norea, Trimorphic Protennoia, and the long recension of the Apocryphon of John.192

The dates and their ranges in this chronological scheme are not homogenous in gnostic scholarship. Whereas Turner dates The Hypostasis of the Archons between 125

191 Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, eds., The Gnostic Bible: Gnostic Texts of Mystical Wisdom from the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, (Boston, MA: New Seeds Books, 2006), 109-110. Meyer explains the Sethians were also called the Barbeloites and Barebelognostics by the heresiologists. 192 John D. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism: a Literary History,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), 76. Turner follows Hans-Martin Schenke, “System” and Sethianism”; See the Gnostic Bible, for a similar list of Sethian literature.

60 and 150 C.E., both Marvin Meyer and Roger Bullard date it to the 3rd century.193

Furthermore, Turner is more confident in his dating techniques for certain texts than others are willing to be; for example, he dates The Apocalypse of Adam between 125 and

150 C.E. whereas Meyer and McRae allow a range between 0 and 200 C.E.194 Still, the date of The Apocryphon of John,195 and, at least sections of Trimorphic Protennoia196 fall within the mid-second century. Not only do The Apocryphon of John and Trimorphic

Protennoia date to the mid-second century, but both show many probable and possible signs of influence from the FG.197 The intertextual relations between these two Sethians texts and the FG are more obvious and abundant than those found in and Justin Martyr.

The Valentinian Gnostics

Gnostic use of the FG becomes more prominent with the Valentinian gnostics.

Valentinus and his followers synthesized the teaching of the FG into their compositions, wrote commentaries on the FG, and made statements about its author.

193 Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 166; James M. Robinson ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 161 194 Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, 277; Meyer follows McRae, see Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 178. 195 Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 137; Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, 104. Layton says that it must be dated before A.D. 180 when Irenaeus refers to it (Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures [New York: Doubleday, 1987], 24). 196 Meyer only makes the statement that the Trimorphic Protennoia reached its present form around A.D. 200 (Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 189), and Layton simply writes that it must have been composed sometime before 350 C.E. (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 86). 197 The comparison between the Nag Hammadi text and the New Testament is found in Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe eds., “Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: a Synopsis and Index,” New Testament Tools and Studies, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). The Trimorphic Protennoia is especially abundant with passages of probable influence from the FG.

61

The Valentinians were fond of using the FG in their literary compositions. Irenaeus wrote that the followers of Valentinus made “copious use of that according to John”

(Adv. Haer. 3.11.7), and, indeed, this is reflected in Valentinian texts that date between

100 and 180 C.E.198 For example, The Gospel of Truth (c. 140-180 C.E.) makes consistent and ample use of the FG,199 and was written by Valentinus200 or one of his followers (Irenaeus, Haer, 3.11.9).201 Whoever the author, that person integrates the FG into the DNA of this literary compositions.

In addition to their literary compositions, the leaders of the Western branch of the

Valentinian school, Ptolemy and Heracleon,202 produced secondary literature on the FG before 180 C.E. Heracleon, composed an allegorical commentary on the FG (c. 160-180) which Meyer observes as “the first substantive exegesis, Christian or Gnostics, which we have of a canonical gospel.”203 In addition, An exegesis of the prologue of John attributed to Ptolemy is preserved by Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. 1.8.5.

198 Although it is not certain that these two texts were composed before 180 C.E., The Treatise on Resurrection (175-200 C.E.) and a Prayer of (150-300 C.E.) show probable and possible signs of influence from the FG (see Evans, Webb, and Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts). 199 See Evans, Webb, and Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts, 19-41. Barnstone’s analysis is that the Gospel of Truth is “seminally influenced by Johannine literature” (Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 239). 200 Layton provides three arguments that Valentinus authored this text, “the work’s stylistic resemblance to the Fragments (whose attribution is explicit) and the uniqueness of that style; the alleged genius and eloquence of Valentinus and the lack of a likely candidate for the authorship among later Valentinian writers; and the absence of a developed system in the work, perhaps suggesting that it belongs early in the history of the Valentinian church” (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures) 251; see also Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 38. There is also a possible allusion to John 6:27 in Fragment E of Valentinus’ writings (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 239). 201 Irenaeus writes, “…while they put forth their own compositions, [they] boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing “the Gospel of Truth,” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.11.9 [ANF, 1:429]). 202 Layton, the Gnostic Scriptures, 277-278, 267; Barnstone and Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, 299. 203 Barnstone and Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, 307. See also Elaine H Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 17 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 16. The Valentinians’ hermeneutical method led them to be the first to publish exegetical commentaries on the FG (Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 16). For the Gnostics, the gospel narratives are allegories meant to be read spiritually to uncover the inner or hidden meaning of the text, although they did not deny the historicity of the events. The gnostics were motivated to write commentaries to show the insufficiency of a

62

Among the Valentinian writings that are related to the FG, Ptolemy’s show most clearly that the Valentinians held the FG as an authoritative text. Two of Ptolemy’s writings identify the author of the FG with the Apostle John. In his exegesis of the

Prologue to John mentioned above, he attributes the Prologue to John, the disciple of the

Lord. Ptolemy’s letter to Flora (c. 136-180) clarifies who he means by this John: Ptolemy quotes John 1.3 and attributes the words to “the apostle” (Epiphanius, Pan. 33.3.6).204

The way the Valentinians integrated the FG into their own authoritative texts, their secondary literature composed on the FG show that the they regarded the FG as an authoritative text. Ptolemy's exegesis of the Prologue to John and his Letter to Flora reveal why they treated the FG with such reverence: because they believed it was written by the Apostle John.

In sum, there is a disparity between the proto-Orthodox writers and the gnostics writers in how they approach the FG between 100 and 180 C.E. The abundance of intertextual connections between the FG and the Sethian and Valentinian literature during this period provides a sharp contrast with the proto-Orthodox writers’ scant references to the FG from the same era. Furthermore, the Valentinian gnostic treat the FG as an authoritative text, whereas the proto-Orthodox seem hesitant to use it; whereas Justin

Martyr shows similarities in expression to the FG, the author of the Gospel of Truth synthesizes the FG into the fabric of his composition. Finally, the Valentinians make clear that they regard the FG as authoritative by producing commentaries on it and

literal interpretation and elevate the superiority of an allegorical interpretation (Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 14-16 cf. 23-24). 204 Of this connection Hengel says, “the Lord’s disciple and ‘the apostle’ were already interchangeable as far as Ptolemy was concerned” (Hengel, Johannine Question, 8). Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora is copied verbatim in Greek by Epiphanius in his Panarion. The accuracy of the extant texts of Epiphanius’ work is a matter of debate, but the word “apostle” occurs in the critical edition of Panarion (Layton, Gnostic Scripture, 307-308).

63 identifying its author as the Apostle John, neither of which the proto-Orthodox do during this period.

Before leaving this section, a point should be made. One cannot generalize to conclude that all Christendom viewed the FG as an authoritative text during the mid- second century because the gnostics during this time did so. Morris attempts to make this conclusion. First, he shows that the gnostics treated the FG authoritatively during the early second century, and then he generalizes this view of the FG to include the proto-

Orthodox, he concludes, “All this adds up to a substantial body of evidence that John’s

Gospel was well known and regarded as authoritative in the first half of the second century.”205 But, if all the writers who treat the FG authoritatively during this time are from Sethian and Valentinian circles, then what reason do we have to extend this gnostic position to the proto-Orthodox? On the contrary, in light of the disparity between the two groups in use of and attitude towards the FG one should judge each group’s view on the

FG separately.

HOW JOHANNINE AUTHORSHIP AROSE AMONG THE GNOSTICS AND IRENAEUS

If the proto-Orthodox between 100 and 180 C.E. did not regard the FG as authoritative and therefore not written by an apostle, then how did the Valentinians come to believe that the FG was authoritative and written by the Apostle John during this same time period? Also, how did Irenaeus and the proto-Orthodox come to believe that the

Apostle John authored the FG by the year 180 C.E.? This section outlines a tentative

205 (Morris, John, 17).

64 explanation for both questions. But, before we do this, a few others have made suggestions to these questions, suggestions which deserve to be noted.

Sanders suggested that the identification of John of Ephesus with the Apostle John first arose among the Gnostics who inferred from Jn 21:2 that the BD was the Apostle

John, an inference that was facilitated by their search for authorities and indifference to historical truth. According to Sanders, the first Gnostic to make this identification was

Heracleon. Sanders reasons that since Origen usually quotes Heracleon when he disagrees with him, and since Origen does not contest Heracleon’s view on the authorship of the FG, then we can infer Heracleon thought the Apostle John authored the FG. As for the proto-Orthodox, they adopted this identification after Irenaeus showed that the FG refutes Gnostic teaching, they “succumbed to the glamour of a great name” and made adopted the identification. 206

Bauckham suggests that the Valentinian Gnostics were influenced by the Egyptian

Christian tradition embodied in the Epistle to the Apostles and the Acts of John to identify the author of the FG with the Apostle John. In regards to the proto-Orthodox, Bauckham suggests that “[t]he ascription of the Gospel to John the son of Zebedee probably spread through the churches from the late second century through the influence of the Acts of

John, Clement of Alexandria, and other representative of the Egyptian tradition.”207

206 J. N. Sanders, “Who Was the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved?” in Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. L. Cross (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1957), 81. 207 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 69-70. See also Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM Press, 1989), 8.

65

How the Valentinians Came to Believe the FG was Written by the Apostle John

The Valentinian belief that the Apostle John authored the FG may have its roots in the Sethian composition, The Apocryphon of John. This text identified the Apostle John as the author of the Revelation, and the Valentinians inherited this belief from it. The belief that the Apostle John wrote the Revelation served as an intermediary step for them to attribute the FG to the Apostle John.

The author of the Apocryphon of John used the introduction to the Revelation as a paradigm for the introduction to his own work and interpreted the John who wrote the

Revelation as the Apostle John. Several features of the introduction to The Apocryphon suggest that the author, being well acquainted with the NT and the Revelation,208 used the introduction to the book of Revelation as a paradigm. First in both works John is a mediator to others of a revelation he receives from the risen Jesus (Rev. 1:1-2; 4-5; NHC

II 1, 1-4; 2, 1-9).209 Secondly, upon seeing Jesus in both works John becomes afraid, and

Jesus addresses this fear and encourages John (Rev. 1:17; NHC II 2, 1; 2, 9-14). Finally, in the Apocryphon, the author summarizes the general content of the message John receives from Jesus in the same way that John receives the message from Jesus in the

Revelation. In the Revelation Jesus says to John, “Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things” (Rev. 1:18). The writer of the Apocryphon of John mimics this and has the Christ

208 Soren Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, vol. 5 of Acta Theologica Danica (Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1963), 152. The intertextual relationships between The Apocryphon and Revelation suggest that the author of The Apocryphon was influenced by the Revelation (Evans, Webb, Wiebe, A Synopsis, 65-67). 209 Giversen notes that John’s role as this medium is common in apocryphic literature and is “supported partly by John’s close relationship to Jesus as testified in the NT, and partly to John’s assumed authorship of John’s Revelation” (Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, 157). I suggest that John commonly takes on this position as a mediator because of the precedent found in the Revelation, which is different than saying John's position in The Apocryphon is “supported” by the Revelation.

66 say to John, “Now I have come to teach you what is and what was and what will come to pass, that you may know the things which are not revealed…” (NHC II 2, 16-18).210

If the author of The Apocryphon did mimic the introduction of the Revelation, then the author also makes an important development: the author interpreted the John of

Revelation as the Apostle John. In the Revelation, the John who receives the revelation from the risen Jesus, and writes it down (Rev. 1:4; Rev. 1:9-11; Rev 22:8) simply refers to himself as John. But the author of The Apocryphon identifies “John, his disciple” (II 1,

1-4) as John the son of Zebedee (NHC II 1, 5-7); the author of The Apocryphon interpreted the John in Revelation as the Apostle John.

Since Valentinus was influenced by The Apocryphon of John, it is reasonable that he believed that the Apostle John wrote the Revelation. First, Valentinus was influenced by the group who produced The Apocryphon, namely, the Sethians.211 Irenaeus reveals as much when he writes that Valentinus adapted the “principles of the heresy called

“Gnostic;”212 these gnostics are the Sethians.213

Furthermore, The Apocryphon of John itself impacted Valentinus’ theology in at least three ways. First, Valentinian thought is founded upon his conception of the depth

(bathos), from it emanates the pleroma of divinity which is organized into fifteen couples of at least thirty eternal realms.214 These realms “resemble the eternal realms in [The

Apocryphon of John] and other Sethian texts, as does Sophia, the last of the Valentinian

210 Although Giversen makes no claim that the author of The Apocryphon is mimicking Revelation here, he notes that Jesus’ revelation to John can me summed up under these three temporal spheres, “…the revealed one has come to teach John about three matters: 1) about that which has happened, 2) that which is, 3) that which will happen.” (Giversen, Apocryphon Johannis, 157). 211 Among other influences (Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 114). 212 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.11.1 (ANF 1:332). 213 Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures 5-9; Barnstone and Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, 112. 214 Barnstone and Meyer, Gnostic Bible, 113.

67 eternal realms.”215 Secondly, in Valentinian thought his “mythic drama” takes place in a realm above and below with a Christ above, and Jesus below. In The Apocryphon, and other Sethians texts, the same above and below drama takes place, the heavenly Seth above and the earthly Seth with the Sethians below.216 Finally, Sethian literature reinterprets the first few chapters in Genesis, and this mythological narrative is epitomized in The Apocryphon of John.217 Valentinus seems to use the insights from this

Sethian mythological narrative “in order to fashion an elegant gnostic system for reflecting upon the origin and destiny of true life and light.”218

Since Valentinus was influenced by the Sethians and The Apocryphon of John, it is reasonable that Valentinus and his followers also identified the John of Revelation with the Apostle John. In turn, the two beliefs that the Apostle John authored The Apocryphon as well as the Revelation may explain how the Valentinians came to identify the Apostle

John as the author of the FG: intertextual relations between The Apocryphon and the FG, as well as the similarities in style between the Revelation and the FG prompted them to do so.

The intertextual relations between The Apocryphon of John and the FG were noted in the previous section. In addition, similarities in theology and vocabulary between the FG and the Revelation suggests to any reader that the two texts have a common author.

Typically, modern scholars hold that the FG and the Revelation have different authors;219 nonetheless, the lexical220 and theological221 similarities222 between the two still cause

215 Ibid. 216 Ibid., 114. 217 Ibid., 110; Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 23; Robinson, Nag Hammadi, 104. 218 Ibid., 6-7. 219 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 204-205. 220 Keener, John, 129; Barrett, John, 51-52; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 26-27.

68 some scholars to conclude that common authorship is possible,223 and many to accept that both were produced by the same community.224 The fact that these lexical and theological similarities cause even modern scholars to recognize that both texts at least originated in the same community is significant. It shows that there is a recognizable relationship between the two texts that could suggest to a gnostic reader who already thought the

Apostle John wrote the Revelation that the apostle also authored the FG.

This tentative explanation of how the Valentinian gnostics came to believe the

Apostle John authored the FG could be summarized as follows: The Valentinian gnostics’ identification of the Apostle John as the author of the FG had its roots in The Apocryphon of John, a Sethian composition. The Valentinians were probably influenced by this text to identify the John of Revelation as the Apostle John. Then, based on the beliefs that the

Apostle John both authored The Apocryphon and the Revelation, the Valentinians extended Johannine authorship to the FG because of the intertextual relationships between all three texts.

How Irenaeus and the proto-Orthodox Came to Believe that the FG was Written by the Apostle John

Since Irenaeus was familiar with Valentinian texts, he may have learned that the

Apostle John authored the FG from them. Furthermore, since the Valentinians were

221 Keener, John, 133-136; Barrett, John, 51-52; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 27-28. 222 Concerning the lexical relationship, one can also emphasize the differences in vocabulary. These differences, however, can be explained on the basis of the different genre, focus, and situation of the Revelation, once these factors are taken into account “the similarities become as striking as the differences.” (Keener, John, 128, 130-131). Likewise, one can emphasize the theological differences between the FG and the Revelation, but these can be explained as a different emphasis on a topic across works (Keener, John, 133, 131-132; Sander and Mastin, according to John, 27). 223 Keener, John, 138; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 44-52 who thinks that John Mark wrote both texts. 224 Keener, John, 138-139; Witherington, Wisdom, 18-19; Beasley-Murray, John, lxxx.

69 accepted Christians until the early 3rd century, by 180 C.E. their assertion that the Apostle

John authored the FG may have influenced the Church at large to adopt the belief.

Irenaeus was familiar with a Valentinian text that claimed the Apostle John authored the FG. Irenaeus quotes Ptolemy’s exegesis of the FG (Adv. Haer. 1.8.5), a passage in which Ptolemy attributes the authorship of the FG to “John, the disciple of the Lord,” whom Ptolemy understands to be the Apostle (Epiphanius, Pan. 33.3.6). Since Irenaeus quotes Ptolemy, then Ptolemy’s identification of the author of the FG is older than

Adversus Haereses. Therefore, Irenaeus could have learned that the Apostle John authored the FG from Ptolemy.225

That Irenaeus learned that the Apostle John authored the FG from Ptolemy has more evidence to support it than the hypothesis that Irenaeus learned the same from Polycarp or Papias. This is so because Polycarp or Papias never connect their John in any way with the FG while Ptolemy twice treats his John as the author of the FG (Adv. Haer. 1.8.5;

Epiphanius, Pan. 33.3.6). In other words, we know Irenaeus interacted with teaching from Polycarp, Papias, and Ptolemy, out of these three there is no literary evidence that

Polycarp or Papias believed their John was the Apostle or authored the FG, but there is evidence that Ptolemy thought that his John was both the Apostle John and author of the

FG. At the least, this fact should justify considering that Irenaeus learned that the Apostle

John authored the FG from Ptolemy.

More generally, by 180 C.E. the Church at large might have heard that the

Apostle John authored the FG from the Valentinians. In the mid-second century, the

Valentinians had not been completely ostracized from the Church at large. Valentinian

225 Irenaeus was also familiar with Valentinian exegetical methods (Adv. Haer. 2.10.1-2; 2.27.1-4) (Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 40-45) and their belief system (Adv. Haer. 2. Preface. 1).

70 scholars taught in theological schools and produced writings that were engaged with by other Christian scholars.226 The second century response to the Valentinians, however, show that their theology was seen as suspect. For example, around 160 C.E. the opponents of the Valentinian school (e.g., Justin Martyr) began to label the Valentinians to divide them from the Church.227 But, the point is that the proto-Orthodox of the second-century were engaging with the Valentinians’ beliefs, which gives an avenue for the Valentinians’ belief that the Apostle John authored the FG to be heard and considered by the proto-Orthodox.

CONCLUSION

Between 100 and 180 C.E., proto-Orthodox writers were hesitant to use the FG as an authoritative text. This attitude towards the FG is brought into focus when their scant use of it is compared with the copious use that the gnostics made of it and the reverence with which they approached it: Heracleon wrote a commentary on the FG and Ptolemy identifies its author as John, the disciple of the Lord, (Adv. Haer. 1.8.5) who he believes is the Apostle John (Epiphanius, Pan. 33.3.6). The scant use of the FG by the proto-

Orthodox and the apprehension with which they approached it suggests that they did not believe it was written by the Apostle John, indeed it is possible they believed that the

Apostle John was martyred in the mid-first century. Still, during this time, the proto-

Orthodox may have believed a non-apostolic John who resided in Ephesus authored the

FG, perhaps the Elder John.

226 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 267-270. 227 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 271.

71

If the orthodox passed the belief that a John authored the FG to the next generation, then this provides some precedent for them to transform this John into the Apostle John c.

180 C.E.; the deciding factor, however, were the Valentinians. They had not yet been fully ostracized from the church, and, although their theology was seen as suspect, they held positions of influence in the Church. The Valentinians, then, with their kosher belief that the Apostle John authored the FG may have influenced the proto-Orthodox to make the same identification. This phenomenon is specified in Irenaeus, who was taught much about John, the disciple of the Lord, by two of this John’s disciples: Polycarp and Papias.

Part of this teaching may have been that John, the disciple of the Lord, authored the FG.

Then Irenaeus encounters Ptolemy’s writings who also attributes the FG to John, the disciple of the Lord, but further identifies this John as the Apostle John.

But, suppose we do not grant the fact that during 100 to 180 C.E. the proto-Orthodox believed that a John authored the FG, and so could not pass this belief on to the next generation. Still, the Valentinian gnostics remain the best explanation to account for the proto-Orthodox belief that the Apostle John authored the FG. There are no extant documents in which an orthodox writer attributes the authorship of the FG to a John or the Apostle John before c. 180 C.E; on the other hand, the Valentinians do attribute the

FG to the Apostle John during this period. To use Irenaeus as an example again,228 his proto-Orthodox sources Polycarp and Papias do not connect their John with the FG; whereas, Irenaeus quotes a passage in which Ptolemy attributes the FG to John, the disciple of the Lord, whom Ptolemy believes to be the Apostle. Based on the evidence,

228 Even with Tatian’s Diatesseron, we know that he was influenced by both Justin and the Valentinians at some point. Further, it is not clear that Justin held the FG as authoritative, but it is clear that the Valentinians did. So the Valentinians influence better explains his elevation of the FG to the level of the Synoptics.

72

Ptolemy, then, is more likely Irenaeus’ authority for the belief that the Apostle John authored the FG than Polycarp or Irenaeus.

The above solution is tentative and not without holes and inconsistencies. But this seems to be the nature of the external evidence concerning the authorship of the FG. The question of FG authorship is a puzzle, and the goal is to arrange the evidence into a convincing portrait; and, with the evidence available, the pieces can be arranged into more than one.

73

CHAPTER THREE: THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE

INTRODUCTION

Our analysis of the external evidence revealed that the early Christians unanimously regarded a John, in most cases the Apostle John, as the author of the FG. The proto-

Orthodox began to believe this c. 180 C.E.; however, between 100-180 C.E., they were unsure about the FG’s authoritative status, which suggests they did not believe that the

Apostle John authored it. Still, during this earlier period, the Valentinian Gnostics clearly held that the Apostle John wrote the FG (c. 140-180).

The internal evidence of the FG tells a quite different story about its author. It seems to suggest strongly that the Apostle John did not write it, nor that he was the witness (the

BD) of the traditions behind it. Indeed, the internal evidence indicates that this witness was a non-itinerant Judean disciple of Jesus, suggesting to many that he was the Elder

John, or Lazarus.

In this chapter, we will exegete the primary passages in the FG in which the BD appears, and evaluate the arguments used to identify him with the Apostle John, Lazarus, or the Elder John, as well as the arguments used to oppose each one of these identifications. This will allow us to build a background against which we can compare the multiform theories of authorship in the final chapter. We find that the internal evidence for identifying the BD with the Elder John is sparse, 229 and, although aspects of the FG can support Johannine authorship, it largely contradicts the hypothesis. The most substantial case that one can make with the internal evidence is identifying the BD with

Lazarus of Bethany.

229 The case for the Elder John is largely built on the external evidence and the fact that the internal evidence argues against Johannine authorship.

74

EXEGESIS OF PASSAGES THAT INCLUDE THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

We focus our analysis of the internal evidence on the passages in the FG that feature the BD to discern how he functions in the narrative. These passages are restricted to those scenes wherein the Evangelist identifies the BD as the disciple whom Jesus loves; these include: Jn 13:21-30; 19:25-27; 20:1-10; 21:1-8; 21:15-25. The presentation of the exegesis for each passage begins with a translation, and then an analysis of the context, and finally an analysis of the issues relevant to our inquiry. Other passages such as Jn

1:35-42, 18:15-17, and 19:35 are often identified as scenes which feature the BD as well.

However, since he does not receive the honorific title in these passages, they are not exegeted, but are drawn upon when appropriate.

The Witness, Evangelist, and Redactor

Before we being the exegesis, it will be helpful to identify the figures who may have had a major role in composing and editing the FG. There has been a considerable discussion concerning how many revisions the FG has undergone, and how many editors and/or redactors contributed to these editions. Although when dealing with the history of a text one must avoid oversimplifications, such as supposing that one person sat down and wrote the entire Gospel from memory in a relatively short period, many of the purposed theories of the FG's composition are unnecessarily complex.230 In the

230 For a survey of the many theories of composition see Brown, Introduction to John, 40-62, For an analysis of Bultmann’s theory see Dwight Moody Smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann’s Literary Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965). For an overview of the purposed sources which the Evangelist might have used see Edwin Cornelius Broome, “The Sources of the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (June 1944): 107-121. Briefly, the sources he discusses are: the “verily, verily” sayings source, the “Greek ” source, the Aramaic collection source, the “I am” sayings source, the signs source, independent anecdotes, and the last week source (Broome, “Sources of the FG,” 108-109).

75 discussion below, we use Brown’s theory of composition to take into account the potential writers and authorities who had a hand in composing the FG.

Brown discerns three major figures in the compositional history of the FG: the BD, the Evangelist, and the Redactor. The BD can be thought of as the authority behind the

FG. His recollections are the foundations of the material in the FG, although he did not necessarily write anything.231 When we refer to either author or authorship, we mean the same thing as how an ‘authority’ has just been defined. The Evangelist was the principal writer of the text. Brown suggests that the evangelist composed the FG, collecting, selecting, editing, arranging, and expounding on the BD’s recollections.232 The redactor reworked, but did not correct, the Gospel. His hand can be detected in passages that make for an awkward intrusion or that are essentially a variant duplicate of another passage

(often inserted immediately beside it, or added to the end of a scene).233 When one of these figures (BD, Evangelist, or Redactor) is referred to below, the above definitions are in mind.

It should be noted that some scholars who have proposed a theory of authorship do not conform with Brown’s model, such as Hengel, who does not make a distinction between the BD and Brown’s Evangelist. So, to clarify, we are not endorsing Brown’s model, but are using it as a way to refer to the potential writers and authorities behind the

FG. We begin our exegesis with the scene of Jesus’ betrayal, John 13:21-30.

231 Brown, Introduction to John, 189-196. 232 Ibid., 78-9, 192. 233 Ibid., 82-3.

76

John 13:21-30

Translation

21 When Jesus said these things, he became greatly distressed in spirit, and he witnessed and said, “Amen, Amen, I say to you that one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples began looking at each other at a loss concerning of whom he was speaking. 23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus’ chest. 24 So Simon Peter nodded to him to ask who it might be concerning whom he was speaking. 25 Therefore, that one who reclined thus upon Jesus’ chest said to him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will dip the piece of bread and give it.” So after dipping the piece of bread, he took it and gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, 27 and after Judas received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Therefore, Jesus said to him, “what you do, do quickly.” 28 But, none of the ones reclining understood why he said this to him. 29 For some of them were supposing that because Judas had the moneybag, that Jesus was saying to him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30 Therefore, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

Context

This scene is part of the larger account of Jesus eating supper with his disciples (Jn

13) before the Feast of the Passover (Jn 13:1), and it is the first event after the end of

Jesus' public ministry (Jn 12:36) recorded in the FG. Jn 13 also marks a significant shift in the gospel; Jesus changes from imparting revelation to the world (Jn 1-12) to imparting revelation to his disciples (Jn 13 ff.).234 After Jesus displays his love for “his own” by washing his disciples' feet (Jn 13:1-17), he exhorts his disciples to follow his example (Jn

13:14-15), and then reveals that one of those eating with him will ‘lift up their heel’ against him (Jn 13:18).235

234 Culpepper, Gospel and Letters, 196; Brown, Introduction, 298-300. 235 John 13:18 (Mk 14:18, 21, Mt 26:21, 24; Lk 22:22) quotes Psalm 41:9. For a discussion of these quotations see Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 11 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), 89-93; Maarten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the

77

John 13:21-30 functions to set Jesus' betrayal in motion, to move him towards the cross, and, ultimately, towards his and the Father's glorification. Jesus testifies that one of those eating with him will betray him. Peter, in unbelief, signals to the beloved disciple to ask Jesus who this might be. This scene is the first time the beloved disciple appears, and he is sitting in a place of honor to Jesus’ right and reclining upon Jesus' chest, a portrait which alludes to Jesus’ relationship to the Father (Jn 1:18) and establishes the BD as a legitimate witness to Jesus’ work.

Commentary

13:21 In this verse Jesus testifies [ἐμαρτύρησεν] that one of his own [τοὺς ἰδίους] will betray him. This disclosure serves as an introduction to 13:21-30, indicating the main topic. Before predicting his betrayal, Jesus becomes troubled [ἐταράχθη] in spirit in the same way he was troubled at Lazarus’ tomb (Jn 11:33) and when he realizes that his hour had come (Jn 12:27).236 Brown suggests Jesus’ being troubled is “related to the presence of Satan in death.”237

13:22-24 Jesus’ words shocked his disciples, and they began to look at each other unable to fathom [ἀπορέω] that one from their circle would betray Jesus.238 At this point, the BD is introduced into the scene reclining on Jesus' bosom [ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ].

Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 15 (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 123-138. 236 Schnackenburg, John, 3:28. 237 Brown, John, 2:576. 238 In Luke, the disciples questioned one another (Lk 22:23). In Matthew and Mark, the disciples ask Jesus “Is it I?” (Mk 14:19; Mt 26:22), and Jesus reveals that the betrayer is one who has dipped their hand in the dish with him (Mk 14:20; Mt 26:23). Also, in Mark Jesus discloses that the betrayer is one of the Twelve, whereas Matthew has dropped this in favor of recording an exchange between Judas and Jesus, “Judas, who was betraying Him, said, ‘Surely it is not I, Rabbi?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself’” (Mt 26:25).

78

This position allows his to clarify the disciples’ perplexity in two ways. First, Jesus and his disciples were probably sitting according to the Roman triclinium arrangement which consists of three couches in a horseshoe pattern around a table. Jesus would be on one couch with a few others of high rank, and the rest would be distributed among the remaining two couches with the one of the highest rank in the middle of each couch. 239

Keener explains that “Each person, facing to the right, would recline behind the person to his right, but with the head further forward on the couch; thus the beloved disciple could lean his head back and be even with Jesus’ chest.”240 Within this arrangement, the BD, being on Jesus’ right, is in the best position to interact with Jesus.241

Secondly, the description of the BD reclining on Jesus’ bosom [ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ

Ἰησοῦ] recalls the Prologue in which Jesus is described as the one “who is in the bosom of the Father” [εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς]. The description of the BD reclining on Jesus’ bosom, then, is a statement that the BD stands in the same “relation to Jesus as Jesus does to the Father with respect to the revelation he was sent to make known…”242 On a larger level, this statement serves to show that the BD is a reliable witness to Jesus' teaching.243

As Jesus resides in the bosom of the Father, which qualifies him as a legitimate witness to the Father’s work, so the Beloved Disciple reclines on the bosom of Jesus, which qualifies him as a legitimate witness to Jesus' work.

239 Brown, John, 574; Keener, John, 915-16. 240 Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 289. 241 The most honored position, however, was on the left of the host because it was the most vulnerable side which meant that the one sitting there must be the most trusted. Judas was probably on Jesus’ left, where Jesus could easily hand him food, underlining Judas’ treachery. Peter was probably at a distance from Jesus since he had to signal to the Beloved Disciple (Brown, John, 574; Keener, John, 915-16; Keener, Background Commentary, 289), possibly in the middle (honored position) of another couch. 242 Beasley-Murray, John, 238. See also Brown, John, 577; Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 195; Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 60. 243 Collins, “Essay in Johannine Characters,” 367.

79

Peter gestures to the BD, probably through a nod, to ask Jesus who the betrayer might be [τίς ἂν εἴη]. This phrase is a fourth class conditional, and, with the supplied protasis, its sense is, “If someone is going to betray Jesus, who would it be?” The optative in this usage denotes a remote possibility based on an unlikely condition, and adds to the atmosphere of perplexity among the disciples; they could not guess who would betray

Jesus. The BD’s privileged position and the fact that he functions as a mediator between

Jesus and Peter are the first hints that suggest there may be competition between the two disciples. However, this contrast does not have to be to the detriment of Peter; rather the contrast could easily be a good to better contrast.244

13:25-26 The BD acts on Peter’s request and asks Jesus, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus informs the BD that he will identify the betrayer by dipping a piece of bread and giving it to him.245 With the table arrangement in mind, this exchange could take place unheard by the other disciples who were sitting on different couches. The phrase ἀναπεσὼν οὖν

ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ can be interpreted to mean that the BD simply leaned his head back without changing positions, allowing him to speak to Jesus privately.246 Indeed, the others, save Peter, were probably unaware that the BD asked such a question to Jesus. They might have missed Peter's silent gesture while they were cross-examining one another and wondering if they themselves could betray Jesus (Lk

22:23; Mk 14:19; Mt 26:22).

244 Keener, John, 916-917; Keener, Background Commentary, 289; Schnackenburg, John, 3:29-30; Beasley-Murray, John, 237. 245 Jesus has indeed shown love and honor to Judas recently: Jesus washed Judas’ feet, and he gave him the place of honor to his left. Now, although he has long known that Judas will betray him (Jn 6:64; Jn 6:70-71; Jn 13:11), Jesus bestows more esteem upon Judas by dipping the bread and giving it to him -- a common practice used by a host to honor a guest (Brown, John, 578; Keener, John, 919; Lincoln, John, 379). 246 Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 443.

80

13:27-30 Satan had already influenced Judas to betray Jesus (Jn 13:2), and now when

Jesus hands Judas the piece of bread, Satan enters him. Jesus then speaks to Judas (cf. Mt

26:25), commanding him to do what he has in mind quickly [ποίησον τάχιον]. Jesus’ command to Judas develops the theme that Jesus is in control of his own fate: no one can take Jesus' life from him, rather Jesus gives it up on his own initiative (Jn 10:18, cf. Jn

19:10-11).247

Jn 13:28-29 are an aside in the narrative, explaining that the disciples did not understood why Jesus said to Judas, “What you do, do quickly.” The disciples did not suspect that Judas was the betrayer; rather they thought he went to buy something for the feast or to give money to the poor (13:29).248 The question relevant to our inquiry is,

“why did the BD not reveal that Judas was going out to betray Jesus?”249 Lincoln explains the BD’s acquiescence by suggesting that “[h]is role appears to be for the sake of the reader more than for the sake of the plot.”250 But, a more satisfying answer can be offered. Ronald Hock has argued that Jesus and the BD formed a pair of Christian friends whose interactions conform to the ideal Greco-Roman friendship pairs.251 One of the exemplary attributes among these friendships was that friends were in harmony with each others’ views and values.252 If Hock is correct, then, the BD’s apparent inaction makes sense: Jesus’ purpose at this point was to die by laying down his life freely (Jn 10:17-18)

247 Keener, John, 919; Talbert, Reading John, 195; Andrew Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 2005), 381. 248 That the disciples thought Jesus asked Judas to buy what they were in need of for the feast is consistent with Jn 13:1, but both suggest that the meal in Jn 13 is not the Passover. It is possible that the author of the FG has compressed the Passover meal with the meal at Bethany (Jn 12:1-11). 249 Brown suggests that Peter and the BD could be exempt from this group (Brown, John, 575). However, it seems unlikely that Peter would acquiesce if he knew Judas was on his way to betray Jesus. 250 Lincoln, Saint John, 378. 251 Ronald F. Hock, “Jesus, the Beloved Disciple, and Greco-Roman Friendship Conventions,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 211-212. 252 Hock, “Greco-Roman Friendship Conventions,” 201-2.

81 to glorify the Father. Therefore, the BD by not stopping Judas (or telling Peter who would cut more than Judas’ ear off) remains in harmony with Jesus’ values as a genuine friend would.

The main flow of the narrative dropped in v. 27 is picked back up in v. 30. Judas obeys Jesus and goes out [ἐξῆλθεν] immediately, an event which could be the background for the description in 1 Jn 2:19 of those antichrists who went out from the

Johannine community [ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν]. After Judas goes out, the Evangelist states,

“And it was night.” This statement is clarified in light of the larger theme of Jesus’ ‘hour’ which is prominent in Jn 13 (Jn 13:1, 31-32). Jesus’ ‘hour’ is first introduced in Jn 2:4 wherein Jesus tells his mother that his hour has not yet come. In Jn 12:23 Jesus announces that his ‘hour’ has come (Jn 12:23), a phrase which means his death and subsequent glorification is imminent (Jn 12:23-25, 27, 33), and in 13:1 the Evangelist reveals that Jesus knew his hour had finally arrived. With this background, one can understand the statement that “it was night” in Jn 13:30 as the crescendo of a ‘day and light / night and darkness’ theme in the Gospel.253 The period of day and light precedes

Jesus’ hour (death), and it is a period wherein he can work unharmed (Jn 7:30; 8:20 11:7-

16). When the are drawn to Jesus (12:20-22), Jesus announces that his hour has finally come (Jn 12:23, 30-33); but, even so, he reveals that the light remains a little while longer (Jn 12:35-36). So, when Judas goes out to betray Jesus (Jn 13:27, 30; Lk

22:3-6; 53), the full advent of night marks the period of Jesus’ harm and death.254

253 Although this will not be the last time this theme comes into play (e.g., 20:1; 21:3-6). 254 The advent of night in Jn 13:30 causes Jesus to exclaim that “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him” (Jn 13:31), by which he means his ‘hour’. This glorification is accomplished by Jesus’ obedient death (Jn 10:17-18), resurrection (Jn 7:39; Jn 20:22), and going back to the Father (Jn 16:28; 17:5).

82

Jn 13:21-30 has introduced us to the BD. The Evangelist, by paralleling the BD’s position to Jesus (Jn 13:23) with Jesus’ position to the Father (Jn 1:15), is establishing the

BD as a legitimate witness to Jesus’ work and teaching. We also learn that the BD is an eyewitness to Jesus’ betrayal by Judas, and can testify that Jesus was aware and in control of his death. Finally, the BD is also portrayed as an equal to Peter, and possibly as superior since he mediates between him and Jesus.

John 19:25-27

Translation

25 But, at the same time, Jesus’ mother, the sister of his mother, Mary the wife of , and stood near his cross. 26 So Jesus, upon seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son.” 27 Then he said to his disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour, the disciple took her into his home.

Context

After Judas left the supper to betray Jesus, Jesus comforted the disciples about his departure to the Father, promised them the Holy Spirit, and prayed for ‘his own’ and those who will come to believe in him through their word (Jn 13-17). After this, Jesus was seized and brought before Annas, and then Pilate. Pilate, pressured by the Jews, handed Jesus over to be crucified (Jn 19:16) as king of the Jews (Jn 19:19), but not before

Jesus made it clear to Pilate that Pilate was not the authority who has permitted his death; heaven was (Jn 19:10-11).255

255 Pilate's lack of authority concerning Jesus’ death is also shown by the fact that, despite his attempts, he cannot manage to release Jesus either (Jn 19:12).

83

The Evangelist then develops four scenes at the cross, three of which fulfill scripture.

First, in Jn 19:23-25 the soldiers who crucified Jesus divvy up his garments and gamble for his tunic, and thus fulfill Psalm 22:18.256 In 19:25-27 Jesus entrusts his mother to the

Beloved Disciple. This scene is different from the other three cross scenes in that no actions in it fulfill the Scriptures.257 In 19:28-30 Jesus takes a drink of sour wine, fulfilling Ps 22:15 and 69:21.258 Finally, in Jn 19:31-38 the Jews ask Pilate to break the legs of the crucified so that their bodies would not remain on the crosses on the Sabbath.

However, since Jesus was already dead, the soldiers did not break his legs (Jn 19:33, 36), fulfilling Ps 34:20;259 rather, they pierced His side with a spear (Jn 19:34, 37), fulfilling

Zech 12:10.260

Commentary

19:25 The μὲν…δὲ construction contrasts the previous scene of the soldiers at the cross with the upcoming scene of Jesus’ disciples near the cross,261 and this verse provides the background information for the exchange between Jesus, his mother, and the

BD. The author relates that Jesus’ mother, the sister of his mother, Mary the wife of

Clopas, and Mary of Magdalene stood near his cross.262 Most commentators conclude

256 For an analysis of the author’s use of Psalm 22:18 see Freed, OT in John, 99-103. 257 This may be evidence that Jn 19:25-27 was added after the original composition of the Gospel. 258 For an analysis of the author’s use of Psalm 22:15 see Freed, OT in John, 104-107. Note, Jn 19:30 may be a possible allusion to 19:26-27 LXX (David A. Jones, Old Testament Quotations and Allusion in the New Testament, (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009). 259 Jn 19:36 quotes Ps 34:20 and alludes to Ex 12:10, 46, Num 9:12. For further discussion of these intertextual relationships see Menken, OT in the FG, 147-166; Freed, OT in John, 108-116. 260 The author quotes Zech 12:10, for further discussion, see Menken, OT in the FG, 167-185. 261 Beasley-Murray, John, 348; Keener, John, 1141. 262 The one constant figure who is at Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospel accounts is Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40, 47 cf. Lk 23:49, 55). Mary Magdalene is introduced here and will play a large role later as the first disciple to witness the empty tomb (Jn 20:1), the first to witness Jesus’ resurrection (Jn 20:11- 18), and the first disciple whose weeping (Jn 20:11, 13, 15) is turned into joy (Jn 20:16-17; cf. 16:20-22).

84 that this verse speaks of either three or four women at the cross; the deciding detail is whether or not ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ stands in apposition to ‘the sister of his mother’. Since it is unlikely that Mary (the mother of Jesus) would have a sister named

Mary as well, an apposition is unlikely; therefore, there are probably four women in this scene.263

The FG places the women followers of Jesus near or by [παρὰ] the cross (Jn 19:25), whereas the Synoptics are unanimous in their testimony that Jesus’ female followers looked on from a distance (Mk 15:40; Mt 27:55-56; Lk 23:49).264 At any rate, the testimony of the FG should not be discarded, for in the ancient world more latitude was given to mourning mothers in such a situation, and there is evidence (although disputed) that relatives or close friends were allowed near crucifixions.265

19:26-27a Jesus saw both his mother and the BD standing nearby. The BD’s presence is consistent with Luke 23:49 which attests that there were male acquaintances with the women watching the events of the cross.266 This scene, then, establishes the BD as an eyewitness to Jesus’ crucifixion, and Jn 19:35 will establish him as an eyewitness to

Jesus’ death.

Upon seeing them, Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of the BD. Jesus’ address –

Women behold, your son…Behold, your mother – is an example of an official formula of the old Jewish family law (see also Tobit 7:12).267 Also, the act of entrusting his mother to the BD is consistent with Jewish customs, Keener explains, “what we know of Jewish

263 Brown, John, 904; see Keener, John, 1142 who gives evidence that in some Roman homes, the father gives multiple sisters the same name. 264 Brown attempts to harmonize by suggesting that the women at one point stood near the cross and were then forced away (Brown, John, 904). 265 Keener, John, 1141; Brown, John, 904. 266 Brown, John, 906. 267 Beasley-Murray, John, 349.

85 customs is that they invited a dying man, including one who was crucified, to settle the legal status of the women for whom he was responsible; a crucified man could make his testament even from the cross.”268

19:27b The BD obeys and takes Jesus’ mother into his own household ‘from that hour.’ Here, ‘hour’ may refer to the hour of Jesus’ death269 that has been anticipated throughout the Gospel (Jn 2:4; 7:30; 8 20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). The majority of scholars discern a symbolic meaning in this scene, maintaining that both the BD and Mary represent larger groups.270 Typically, the BD is interpreted as representing all Christians, but Mary’s role is ambiguous. For example, Brown casts Mary in several roles, suggesting she represents Lady Zion, the New Israel, or Eve. In these cases, the BD represents the people of the new messianic age, Eve’s offspring, or simply each believer, respectively.271 On another interpretation, Schnackenburg suggests that Mary represents all those seeking salvation, and BD’s act of receiving Mary into his home represents his role as one who adopts anyone seeking salvation.272 Although these interpretations are creative and draw on themes from the Gospel, this passage may primarily serve a historical function in that it asserts something about the BD.273 Namely, that the BD is the

268 Keener, John, 1144. 269 Brown, John, 907. 270 However, Keener disagrees with these symbolic interpretations, asserting that if the author had intended such allegorical meanings, then he would have given stronger clues (Keener, John, 1143). For a survey of the historical and symbolic interpretations of this scene see Schnackenburg, John, 3:279-282. 271 Brown, John, 922-926, 13. Beasley-Murray disagrees with Brown (Beasley-Murray, John, 349- 350). 272 Schnackenburg, John, 3:278-279. 273 Brown suggests the focus is on Jesus’ mother becoming the mother of the BD (Brown, John, 925), whereas others hold the focus is on the BD taking responsibility for Jesus’ mother (Talbert, Reading John, 244; see also Beasley-Murray, John, 350). Culpepper is one who suggests that symbolism is not in view, rather Jesus’ act “confers on the Beloved Disciple—and, by implication, on the Johannine community—the authority of succession” (Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 64).

86

‘witness par excellence:’274 who is in a better position to learn authentic tradition about

Jesus then the one who lives with Jesus’ mother?

In Jn 19:25-27 the Evangelist has further established the BD’ witness to Jesus’ passion by showing that he was a witness to Jesus’ crucifixion and to Jesus’ death (Jn

19:35). Furthermore, not only is he a witness to Jesus’ final hour, but he takes Jesus’ mother into his own home, thus becoming a reliable source for tradition concerning

Jesus’ entire life.

John 20:1-10

Translation

1 On the first day of the week, early in the morning while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from it. 2 Therefore, she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Therefore, Peter and the other disciple went out, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together, and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first. 5 After bending over, he saw the linen wrappings lying there, though he did not enter in. 6 So Simon Peter, following him, also came, and he entered into the tomb and observed the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth which was on Jesus' head not lying with the linen cloths, but apart from them, folded up in a place by itself. 8 So, then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. 9 For they had not yet understood the scripture, that it was necessary for him to rise from the dead. 10 So the disciples went away again to their homes.

Context

Jesus was crucified as the King of the Jews and was buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus in a garden tomb nearby, one in which nobody had been laid. On the day

274 Lincoln, Saint John, 476-477. Lincoln suggests that Mary represents all those who will receive salvation, and they are now in the care of the Beloved Disciple, who is the ‘witness par excellence.’

87 after the Sabbath, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene visited Jesus’ tomb. Upon seeing the stone rolled away from the tomb, she runs and reports to Peter and the BD that someone has stolen Jesus’ body, so both disciples run to Jesus’ tomb. The BD arrives at the entrance to the tomb before Peter and beholds the linen cloths; however, when Peter arrives, he enters the tomb and sees a facecloth as well, prompting the BD to enter in.

What they see in Jesus’ tomb causes them to believe Mary’s report that someone had stolen Jesus’ body, and so they depart to their homes.

Commentary

20:1-2 Mary Magdalene comes to Jesus’ tomb on the first day of the week, early in the morning and while it is still dark (probably between 3 and 6 A.M.).275 The reference to it still being dark is not made in the Synoptics (Mk 16:2; Mt 28:1; Lk 26:1), so the

Evangelist might be alluding to the day and light / night and dark theme:276 Night marked

Jesus’ death (Jn 13:30), and since the disciples still believe that Jesus is dead, they are living in the dark.

Mary saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 277 The stone was either a boulder which was rolled against the entrance or a wheel-shaped stone which was rolled in a track across the entrance.278 So Mary runs to Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus

275 The phrase “early in the morning” assumes the Roman tradition of beginning the day at midnight, and if one takes this phrase into consideration with “while it was still dark” the possible time range can be estimated to be from 3 to 6 A.M (Brown, John, 980). 276 See Keener, John, 1178 for other possibilities. 277 For a discussion on missing body theories see Keener, John, 1180-1181. 278 Brown, John, 982.

88 loved and reports that someone had taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb.279 The synoptic tradition agrees that Mary Magdalene (and others) made their report to many of

Jesus’ disciples, a group that included more than the eleven apostles (Lk 24:9-10; cf. Mk

16:10; Mt 28:8). This makes it plausible that the BD and Peter heard the report together even if the BD was not an apostle.

20:3-4 Both Peter and the BD run to the tomb after hearing Mary Magdalene’s report.

Luke most closely parallels the account in FG from this point forward. It records that after Mary Magdalene and others report the situation to Jesus' disciples (Lk 24:10), Peter runs to the tomb, stoops over, and peers in, beholding the linen clothes by themselves.

This account overlaps with Jn 20:3-10 considerably,280 but differs as well; most notably

Peter has no companion.281 But, in Lk 24:24 the two disciples on the road to Emmaus say to Jesus that upon hearing the report of the women “some of those who were with us went to the tomb…”; this tradition is consistent with the report in the FG that the BD accompanied Peter.

20:5-7 The BD outruns Peter and comes to the tomb first; he bends over, looks in, and sees the linen wrappings lying there [βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια], but he does not enter. The entrances to such tombs were a yard high from the ground, and so adults would have to stoop over to see inside the tomb, and to enter it they would have to crawl.282 The linen wrappings were put on Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea (Jn 19:38-40;

279 It is interesting that Mary uses the first person plural in her report, “we do not know [οἴδαμεν].” Commentators often point out that this reflects the Synoptic tradition wherein others accompany Mary to the tomb (Lincoln, Saint John, 489; Brown, John, 984; Keener, John, 1178). 280 In Lk 24:12 Peter ran [ἔδραμεν] to the tomb, and in Jn 20:4 both the BD and Peter were running [ἔτρεχον] to the tomb, the verb stem in both accounts is τρέχω. In Lk 24:12, upon reaching the tomb Peter παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα. This phrase is close to how the FG describes the scene when the BD reaches the tomb, παρακύψας βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια. 281 Furthermore, Luke does not record that he entered the tomb or that he saw the face cloth. 282 Brown, John, 982.

89

Mk 15:46), and may allude to Lazarus’ resurrection in which he comes forth from the tomb bound in linen wrappings (Jn 11:44).

Peter arrives and enters the tomb. He sees the linen wrappings and, apart from the linen wrappings, the facecloth [τὸ σουδάριον] which was on Jesus’ head. Again, this may allude back to Lazarus’ resurrection in which he also was wearing a facecloth [τὸ

σουδάριον] (Jn 11:44). Through the parallels of the linen wrappings and facecloth, Jesus’ resurrection may be contrasted with Lazarus’ in that Lazarus was still bound in the wrappings, but Jesus shows his sovereignty over death by leaving the wrappings behind.283

Many commentators discern a type of competition or comparison between Peter and the BD in this scene. However, it should be emphasized that Peter is not being demeaned or criticized through this comparison:284 ancient writings often compared characters, and, through this comparison, one could highlight a virtue of one without demeaning the character of the other.285 Furthermore, it seems that, although the BD is depicted as superior to Peter, Peter is also portrayed as superior to the BD. For instance, the

Evangelist elevates the BD over Peter when the BD out-runs him since the ancient used athletic prowess to compare two characters.286 But, the Evangelist also elevates Peter over the BD since Peter shows more zeal for Jesus by entering into the tomb first, whereas the BD hesitates and stops at the entrance.

283 Lincoln, Saint John, 490; Talbert, Reading John, 249-250. 284 Schnackenburg, John, 3:310, 314; Brown, John, 1006. For symbolic interpretations of this competition Lincoln, Saint John, 489. 285 Keener, Background Commentary, 309. 286 Keener, Background Commentary, 309. Kenner gives the example of Josephus out-swimming others (Life 15).286

90

20:8-9 The BD then follows Peter into the tomb, and upon seeing (the facecloth?) he believes. The question, though, is what does the BD believe? Many suggest that the BD believes that Jesus has been resurrected, which contrasts with Peter’s unbelief.287 Keener defends this interpretation and reasons that since the tomb was not ransacked (e.g., face- cloth was folded, and the clothes remained behind), this would suggest that Jesus’ body had not been thieved, but that his claim to rise again was true (Jn 10:17-18).288 Surely, it should suggest this, but can we assume that the disciples at the time recognized this logic?289 The problem with the interpretation that the BD believed Jesus had been raised is that it struggles to make sense of v. 9.

According to v. 9, the BD believed ‘x’ for the reason that “they had not yet understood the scripture, that it was necessary for him to rise from the dead.”290 But, if

‘x’ is “Jesus had been raised from the dead”, v. 9 makes no sense because it would communicate that the BD believed Jesus had been raised from the dead because he did not understand that it was necessary for Jesus to rise from the dead. But, we can offer a different suggestion for what the BD believed, namely, the context suggests that the BD believed Mary’s report: Jesus’ body had been stolen. Stealing a body from a tomb was apparently a problem in the 1st century C.E., for emperor Claudius (41-54 C.E.) issued a decree found in Nazareth that included capital punishment for those who removed bodies

287 Brown, John, 1004-5; Keener, John, 1183-4; Beasley-Murray, John, 373; Schnackenburg, John, 3:312; Talbert, Reading John, 250. Witherington, however, maintains that there is no evidence that the BD believed in the resurrection. Rather, he suggests that based on the empty tomb the BD may have believed that God had taken Jesus into heaven, like or Moses (Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 324; Ben Witherington, What Have They Done with Jesus? [New York: Harper Collins, 2006], 154). 288 Keener, John, 1182. first recognized this reasoning (Jo hom., 85, 4) (Schnackenburg, John, 3:311). 289 Schnackenburg notes that neither Mary or Peter recognized this reasoning (Schnackenburg, John, 3:311) 290 Jn 20:9 possibly alludes to Psalms 16:8-11 as Acts 2:24-31 does for evidence that the Scriptures testify to Jesus' resurrection, or possibly Isa 55:3 as Acts 13:34 does. The fact that the Scriptures testify to Jesus' resurrection is claimed elsewhere 1 Cor 15:4; Luke 24:26-27; Lk 24:44-49.

91 from tombs.291 The disciples, then, would not be completely surprised to learn that someone had stolen Jesus’ body. This interpretation is also consistent with the theme of

Jesus’ disciples misunderstanding his words or actions (e.g. Jn 2:22; 12:16).292 Therefore, upon witnessing the empty tomb, the BD comes to believe something, and it is reasonable that the content of his belief is Mary’s report that someone had stolen Jesus’ body.293

The primary function of Jn 20:1-10, then, is to show that the BD and Peter are witnesses to the empty tomb and to the fact that the wrappings and the facecloth remained behind.294 Later, the Christians could have used the fact that the burial clothes had not been taken as evidence that Jesus’ body had not been stolen. Additionally, a comparison with the Synoptics revealed that the BD did not have to be an apostle to be with Peter when Mary Magdalene made her report.295

John 21:1-8

Translation

1 After these things, Jesus again revealed himself to the disciples near the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas who is called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, the sons of

291 Beasley-Murray, John, 371. 292 For an explanation of this theme see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospels and Epistle of John: A Concise Commentary (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1988), 17. Also, we might ask why the BD did not share his faith if he believed Jesus had been raised? (Lincoln, Saint John, 490-491). 293 A few scholars have offered explanations to v. 9 which resolve the apparent inconsistency of how the BD is portrayed throughout the gospel and the fact that the BD does not believe that Jesus had been raised. Lincoln suggests that the BD’s belief occurs in spite of his lack of understanding the Scripture (Lincoln, Saint John, 490-491). Schnackenburg takes a source critical approach to suggest that the Evangelist borrowed v. 9 from a source and didn’t work out the contradiction in his context (Schnackenburg, John, 3:313). 294 Talbert, Reading John, 250; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 325. 295 Less relevant to our study, but still important is that this narrative fulfills Deut 19:15, and it serves to provide a male testimony for the empty tomb since the testimony of women was of little value in Jewish standards (Beasley-Murray, John, 372; Lincoln, Saint John, 490; Talbert, Reading John, 249-250).

92

Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going to fish.” They said to him, “We are also coming with you.” So they went out, and they got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4 Now, when early morning had come, Jesus stood upon the beach, though the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them, “Children, you haven’t caught any fish, have you?” They answered him “No.” 6 And he said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will come upon some.” Therefore, they cast the net, and no longer were they able to haul it because of the large amount of fish.7 Therefore, that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” So Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, tied his outer garment around himself, for he had taken it off, and he threw himself into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the small boat dragging the net of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about 200 cubits from it.

Context

After Peter and the BD had inspected the empty tomb, they went to their homes, leaving Mary Magdalene, who began to cry. But, when Jesus revealed himself to her,

Mary’s mourning turned into rejoicing, fulfilling Jesus’ prediction that the disciples’ weeping would turn into joy when he saw them again (Jn 16:20, 22; cf. Jn 20:20). After this, the Evangelist records that Jesus appeared to his disciples twice more and then reveals his purpose for writing, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of

God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn 20:30-31).

Jn 21:1-14 recounts the third time that Jesus revealed himself to his disciples (Jn 21:1,

14), this time he manifests himself by the Sea of Tiberius (Galilee). Peter, Thomas,

Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples are fishing, but they catch nothing during the night. Early in the morning, Jesus appears on the beach, but the disciples do not recognize him. Jesus commands the disciples to cast the net again, and they obey Jesus and catch 153 fish. This miraculous catch causes the BD to proclaim to

Peter that “it is the Lord!” After hearing this, Peter jumps into the sea and swims to Jesus.

93

Commentary

Before commenting on this section, it will be helpful to investigate Jn 21’s literary relationship to Jn 1-20. One might argue that the Redactor added Jn 21 after the

Evangelist had completed Jn 1-20 because of the differences in vocabulary between Jn 1-

20 and Jn 21 and because Jn 20:30-31 seems to be a natural conclusion to the gospel.296

However, the differences in vocabulary are not evaluated equally; Keener points out that parts of Jn 21 use typical Johannine language.297 Similarly, one can argue that Jn 20:30-

31 is not the original conclusion to the FG as a whole, but that it is the conclusion to the

FG’s account of signs, or that even if Jn 20:30-31 is the Gospel’s primary purpose, this does not stop Jn 21 from being an epilogue which completes some central themes in

John.298 In addition to these arguments, Talbert makes a compact and persuasive case for the authenticity of Jn 21, 299

In placing the statement of purpose in a location prior to the actual ending of the gospel, the Evangelist employs a technique used elsewhere in the Gospel (cf. 12:36b-37, which reads like a conclusion to what has come before, but which is followed by vv. 38-50), by the author of 1 John (cf. 5:13 = the statement of purpose, which is followed by vv. 14-21), and the writer of Revelation (cf. 22:5 = the end of the visions, but vv. 6-21 follow). Given this technique employed in the Johannine writings, the location of the Gospel’s statement of purpose before the actual end says nothing against chapter 21’s place in the Fourth Gospel.300 The interpretation the Evangelist composed Jn 21 is adopted below (with the possible exception that Jn 21:24-25 was added by the Redactor).301

296 Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 352. 297 Keener, John, 1225-1226. 298 Richard Bauckham, “The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 27-28. 299 For others who accept the relative unity of the FG, see Hengel, Johannine Question, 88-94; Beasley-Murray, John, 400. 300 Talbert, Reading John, 258. 301 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 27-28. For further discussion on the unity of Jn 1-20 and Jn 21, see Brown, John, 2:1077-1082; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The Archive of Excess: John 21 and the Problem of Narrative Closure,” in Exploring the Gospel of John, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 240-252.

94

21:1-3a Jesus reveals himself to his disciples a third time (Jn 21:14), which probably means the third time in the narrative, not the third time altogether.302 Based on its use throughout John (1:31, 2:11, 17:6), revealed himself [ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν] probably connotes the idea that this is a revelatory act.303 The occasion for this revelation is a fishing trip to Galilee organized by Simon Peter. Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of

Zebedee, and two other disciples accompany Peter. Since the BD appears in this context

(Jn 21:7), the BD’s identity is restricted to one of these disciples in Peter’s company.

21:3b-6 Jn 21:3b-6 has a close parallel in Lk 5:3-11; in both accounts: Peter is the main character (Jn 21:2-3, 7; Lk 5:3-5, 8, 10), the fisherman catch nothing during the night (Jn 21:3; Lk 5:5), Jesus commands them to try casting their nets again (Jn 21:6; Lk

5:4), and the fishermen obey and they catch a great quantity of fish (Jn 21:6; Lk 5:6).

However, there are also a few notable differences: Jesus is in the boat with Peter in Luke

(Lk 5:3), but on the shore in the FG (Jn 21:4); and, the narrative occurs before Jesus’ resurrection in Luke while it occurs afterwards in the FG. It is improbable that this event happened a second time after Jesus’ resurrection, since it is unlikely that Peter went through the same dialogue with Jesus without recognizing him. In light of this, Brown’s suggestion that “independently Luke and John have preserved variant forms of the same miracle story” is probable correct.304

On the sea of Galilee, it was not uncommon for fishermen to fish by night, using torchlight and a dragnet, since it had advantages such as being able to sell fresh fish in the

302 Keener, John, 1226. 303 Lincoln, Saint John, 668. 304 Brown, John, 1090-1; Witherington also thinks that Jn 21 presupposes the tradition behind Lk 5:3- 11 (Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 354). After comparing the two accounts, Brown interestingly posits that “Luke v 4-9, 10b, 11a was once part of a post-resurrectional story of the first appearance of Jesus to Peter (with his fellow fishermen serving as silent companions, even as in John xxi).” (Brown, John, 1091; for a more in-depth discussion about the tradition that Jesus appeared to Peter see Brown, John, 1085-1092).

95 morning.305 However, the disciples came away empty handed this night, and at daybreak

Jesus asks them from the shore, “Children, you haven’t caught any fish, have you?” (cf.

Lk 24:41). The disciples respond “no”, and then Jesus commands them to cast their net on the right side of the boat. They obey Jesus’ command and catch more fish than they can haul in.

21:7-8 Until now, the disciples have not recognized that the man on the shore is Jesus

(cf. Jn 20:14; Lk 24:16); but, the great catch causes the BD to recognize him, possibly because in Jewish Tradition God was sovereign over fish (e.g., Tobit 6:2-5).306

In regards to the BD, Jn 21:1-8 primarily functions to establish him as a witness to

Jesus’ resurrection. This passage also highlights the manner in which the BD is superior to Peter – in insight to and revelation of Jesus’ character. However, Peter is also superior to the BD ways, Peter shows a greater zeal for Jesus by throwing himself into the sea and swimming to him.

John 21:15-25

Translation

15 Therefore, after they ate breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Peter said to him, “Yes Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” 16 Jesus said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter said to him, “Yes Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Simon was saddened because Jesus said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And Peter said to him, “Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, Amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and you used

305 Keener, John, 1227; Keener, Background Commentary, 312; Brown, John, 1069. 306 Keener, Background Commentary, 312.

96

to walk wherever you desired. But, when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will clothe you and will carry you where you do not desire.” 19 He said this to indicate with what kind of death Peter would glorify God. After saying this, Jesus said to him, “Follow me.” 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, who also leaned back on his chest at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays you?”. 21 So, after seeing him, Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, but what about this one?” 22 Jesus said to Peter, “If I want him to remain until I come, then what is that to you? You follow me.” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brothers, namely, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I want him to remain until I come back, then what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things and the one who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, then I do not suppose the whole world itself could contain the books which would be composed.

Context

When the disciples had made it to land, they noticed that Jesus was preparing fish and bread over a fire, and the scene ends with the disciples eating with Jesus. After the breakfast, Jesus asks Peter three times, “do you love me?” Peter answers that he does love Jesus all three times, and Jesus establishes Peter as the shepherd over his sheep.

After this, Jesus describes how Peter will glorify God through martyrdom, and bids Peter to follow him. But, Peter turns and sees the BD following, and inquires of his fate. Jesus responds that if he wants the BD to remain until he returns, then it is none of Peter’s business; rather, Peter should focus on following him. Jesus’ words caused the rumor that the BD would not die to spread among the brethren – a false rumor that the Evangelist puts to rest.

97

Commentary

21:15-17 Scholars have discerned two major themes in the exchange between Peter and Jesus in vv. 15-17 that are relevant to our study: Jesus establishes Peter as a shepherd, and Peter is ‘rehabilitated.’307

Concerning the first theme, Jesus asks Peter three times, “do you love me?” Each time Peter responds to Jesus’ question, Jesus commands Peter to “Feed my sheep” (v.15),

“Shepherd my sheep” (vs. 16), and “Feed my sheep” (v. 17), respectively.308 In this exchange, Jesus establishes Peter as a shepherd over the sheep that the Father has entrusted to him (Jn 10:1-18), and transfers his authority to Peter.309 However, the role of a shepherd is not restricted to Peter, both Peter and Paul exhort the elders in churches to shepherd as well (1 Pet 5:1-3; Acts 20:28).310

Secondly, Scholars have discerned a symbolic undoing of Peter’s three denials (Jn

19:15-18, 25-27) and his rehabilitation to discipleship when Peter responds to Jesus’ questions in the affirmative all three times.311 The presence of the charcoal fire in both

307 Another issue is the verbs for love (ἀγαπάω and φιλέω) used in this exchange. Scholars in the early to mid twentieth century tended to maintain that the shift from ἀγαπάω to φιλέω the third time Jesus asked Peter, “do you love me?” was accompanied by a change in meaning; however, contemporary scholars treat the two verbs as synonyms (Brown, John, 1102-3; Beasley-Murray, John, 404-5; Lincoln, Saint John, 518; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 356; Schnackenburg, John, 3:362-3; Keener, John, 1236-7; Talbert, Reading John, 261). For an example of a scholar who tried to distinguish the FG’s use of φιλέω and ἀγαπάω see Ernest Evans, The Verb Agapan in the Fourth Gospel, in Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. L. Cross (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1957), 64-71. 308 It was an ANE custom to solemnize something by saying it three times before witnesses. When this concept is applied to Jn 21:15-17, it could lend authoritativeness to Peter’s role as a shepherd (Brown, John, 1112; who quotes Gaechter, P., “Das dreifache ‘Weide meine Lämmer,’” ZKT 69 (1947): 328-44). However, other scholars are not convinced by his interpretation (Schnackenburg, John, 3:364-5; Beasley- Murray, John, 404-5). 309 Schnackenburg, John, 3:364-6; Brown, John, 1113-1116. On protestant and catholic interpretations see Beasley-Murray, John, 406. The shepherd as one who leads people with authority has its roots in the OT (2 5:2; Ps 78:71-72; Isa 40:11). 310 Beasley-Murray, John, 406-7. 311 Schnackenburg, John, 3:362; Talbert, Reading John, 261; Brown, John, 1111.

98 scenes (at Peter's three denials [18:18] and his three confessions [21:9]) underscores the parallel.312

21:18-19a An account of Peter's martyrdom naturally follows after Jesus establishes

Peter as a shepherd over his flock since Jesus himself says that “the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (Jn 10:11).313 Peter was probably crucified in Rome under

Nero c. 64 C.E.,314 and in v. 18, Jesus cryptically signifies this death (cf. 2 Pet 1:14), just as he cryptically signifies his own death in Jn 12:31-33 (cf. 18:32).

Beasley-Murray argues that “stretching out” the hands was an expression classical writers could use to refer to crucifixion.315 This interpretation makes sense of the order in which he delimits the details of Peter's death. Jesus says that Peter will stretch out his hands and then someone will bring here where he does not want to go. The first component could refer to how the patibulum was bound to the stretched out arms of the offender, and the second to how the offender would then be led to the place of crucifixion.316 Indeed, Jesus’ utterance was probably interpreted as referring to Peter’s martyrdom since a death that glorifies God is Christian language for martyrdom.317

21:19b-21 After signifying how Peter would die, Jesus calls Peter to follow him; but,

Peter turns to see the BD also following them.318 The Evangelist takes this opportunity to describe the BD in depth, “Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, whom also leaned back on his chest at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one

312 Lincoln, Saint John, 518. 313 Talbert, Reading John, 261-2; Keener, John, 1237. 314 Keener, Background Commentary, 313. 315 E.g., Epictetus 3:26:22; cf. Epistle of Barnabas 12:4, Justin, 1 Apology 35 (Talbert, Reading John, 262). On the other hand, Lincoln suggests that stretching out may also simply refer to stretching out his hands to be bound (Lincoln, Saint John, 518). 316 Beasley-Murray, John, 408. 317 Brown, John, 1121. 318 That the BD is following Peter and Jesus compares with Jn 18:15 where the BD and Peter are both following Jesus.

99 who betrays you?”” (Jn 21:20). This flashback to the Last Supper is significant because it reminds them of the importance of the BD’s relationship to Jesus: the BD reclines on

Jesus’ bosom just as Jesus resides in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18).319 This, in turn, reminds the reader that the BD is an ideal witness to Jesus’ work and revelation. The

Evangelist probably brings these things to the reader’s mind to prepare them for his statement that the BD is a witness to the material throughout the entire book (Jn 21:24).

21:22-23 Upon seeing the BD, Peter asks Jesus how the BD will die (probably because Jesus’ prediction of his own martyrdom is fresh in Peter’s mind). Jesus’ response to Peter “If I want him to remain until I come, then what is that to you? You follow me,” caused the rumor that the BD would not die to spread among the ‘brethren’ (Ac 1:15;

21:17; 28:14). However, this was apparently a false interpretation because the Evangelist corrects it, asserting that Jesus did not explicitly say that the BD would not die.

Most scholars suggest that Jn 21:20-23 is included because the BD had died, causing anxiety among the believers since they believed that Jesus predicted that the BD would remain until he returned. To show that Jesus was not untrustworthy, or that he had not made a mistake, the Evangelist explains that the brethren had misunderstood Jesus, relieving their unrest.320 The account of Jn 21:20-23 also contributes to Jn 21:15-23 by contrasting Peter’s ministry with the ministry of the BD. This contrast gives them a different function while maintaining their equal status: Peter will be the good shepherd who lays down his life for the flock, but the BD will remain and be a witness (Jn 21:24)

319 Beasley-Murray, John, 409. 320 Hengel, Johannine Question, 76-77; Witherington, What Have They Done, 163; Beasley-Murray, John, 412; Talbert, Reading John, 262-3; Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 70; Schnackenburg, John, 3:371; Brown, John, 1118-9.

100 to Jesus’ works and revelation.321 This interpretation also sheds light on the Evangelist’s intention in juxtaposing the BD and Peter: Peter is portrayed as superior to the BD in some ways, but the BD as superior to Peter in others, and, therefore, they are ultimately portrayed as equals.

21:24 This verse identifies the witness behind the material in the Gospel as the BD.

The central issues in v. 24 are: what is the significance of the present tense participle

“who is witnessing [μαρτυρῶν]”; what part of the FG does ‘these things [τούτων]’ refer to; what does the aorist participle “who wrote [γράψας]” mean; and who are the “we”?

To address the first two issues, the present participle does not necessarily imply that the BD was alive at the time 21:24 was written, but that his witness was present in what he wrote (e.g., the existence of the text).322 Next, “these things” could refer to several layers of the text: Jn 21 alone, Jn 1-20, or both Jn 1-20 and Jn 21. One’s theory of composition will inform what option they decide upon, and since the unity of Jn 1-20 with Jn 21 was argued for above, “these things” are interpreted as all of Jn 1-21 (with the exception of 21:24-25 perhaps).

“The one who wrote” [ὁ γράψας] can be construed in three ways: the BD wrote these things with his own hand, he caused these things to be written (dictated), or that he was the source of the material behind the text.323 Most scholars interpret ὁ γράψας to mean that the BD stands as the source behind the traditions in the FG, and caused them to be written in some sense, but that he himself probably did not put pen to papyrus. A parallel to the BD’s role in composing the FG is provided in Jn 19:19, 22 which records that

321 John F. O’Grady, “The Role of the Beloved Disciple,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 9 (April 1979): 58-60; Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 71. Talbert, Reading John, 263; Keener, John, 1234; Beasley-Murray, John, 410, 418. 322 Schnackenburg, John, 3:372; Brown, John, 1123; Keener, John, 1240. 323 Brown, John, 1123.

101

Pilate wrote [γράφω] the inscription that was placed above Jesus’ head; however, he probably ordered it to be written and another wrote it.324

The “we” in Jn 21:24 can be interpreted as the Evangelist using the editorial we, or as the Evangelist and his fellow associates. The fellow associates in the second option can be interpreted as a narrow circle or a larger church.325 For the Evangelist (and his associates) the BD is a historical figure who authenticates and witnesses to the tradition in the FG.326 Bauckham argues that the way in which the FG portrays the BD qualifies him as the ideal witness, and, therefore, the ideal author. Although Bauckham maintains that the BD actually wrote the FG, 327 one can construe his insight to mean that the BD functions as the ideal author in the sense that he is the ideal authority for the traditions in the FG.

21:25 This verse functions as a second conclusion to the FG, and its content overlaps with the first conclusion in 20:30-31. For instance, in 20:30 the Evangelist says that there were many other “signs” that Jesus performed, whereas in 21:25 the Redactor says that there were many other “things” which Jesus did. Again, in 20:30 the Evangelist says that these things, “are not written in this book,” whereas in Jn 21:25 the Redactor explains what would happen if one attempted to write down the unrecorded material; he says, “I do not suppose the whole world itself could contain the books which would be composed.”

324 Schnackenburg, John, 3:373; Brown, John, 1127; Beasley-Murray, John, 415. 325 Beasley-Murray, John, 413-4; Schnackenburg, John, 3:374. 326 Hawkin, “Function of the BD,” 149-50. 327 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 33-41. For the interpretation that the BD is the ideal disciple with whom one is to identify, see David R. Beck, “The Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization,” Semeia 63 [1993]: 143-158).

102

This final sentence is hyperbole explaining why all Jesus’ deeds have not been written down,328 and it has an important implication for a theory of FG authorship.

Keener observes that “when writers had more data before them than they could record, they often noted that they were being selective.”329 If this is the situation in the FG, then the Evangelist had more material left behind by the BD (written or oral) that he did not record, or that he had multiple sources in front of him and could not find a place for it all in his narrative.

Our analysis of the passages in which the BD appears has shown that the Evangelist portrays the BD as an ideal witness to Jesus’ works and revelation. The BD is an ideal witness because he was an eyewitness to Jesus’ Judean ministry, with a focus on Jesus’ passion (Jesus’ betrayal, arrest and trial, crucifixion and death, empty tomb, and resurrection), and because he is a trustworthy source of tradition about Jesus’ life by virtue of living with Jesus’ mother. The Evangelist completes his case of displaying that the BD is an ideal witness in Jn 21:15-25. In this passage the Evangelist establishes the roles of the BD and Peter with respect to each other: Peter is the shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (his martyrdom), but the BD is the ideal witness who remains with the brethren. Now that we have studied how the BD functions within the FG narrative, we turn our attention to the arguments that scholars use to support or oppose identifying the BD with the Apostle John, the Elder John, or Lazarus.

328 Keener, John, 1241-2; Brown, John, 1130. 329 Keener, Background Commentary, 313.

103

ARGUMENTS USED TO IDENTIFY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

Scholars have often noted that the internal evidence for FG authorship does not favor identifying the author with the Apostle John, and some even suggest that it supports identifying the author with Lazarus. This is the opposite situation of the external evidence which does not mention Lazarus and identifies the author with a John. Others are not convinced that the internal evidence points to either the Apostle John or Lazarus, but an educated Judean disciple, who witnessed Jesus' ministry in and around Jerusalem, who knew the high priest, and who possibly was from the upper-class. This final option, taken in conjunction with the external evidence, leads scholars to identify the BD with John, the disciple of the Lord, who is also the Elder John.

In this section, we survey the arguments, which one can derive from the internal evidence, that support and oppose identifying the BD with the Apostle John, Lazarus, or the Elder John. Furthermore, some arguments support Lazarus and oppose the Apostle

John simultaneously, and so they are grouped together. Surveying these arguments will help complete the background against which one can judge the theories of authorship in the next chapter. But, before these arguments are discussed, it will be helpful to critique

Westcott’s process of elimination to establish that non-apostolic authorship is plausible and to demonstrate the common ground shared by each theory.

The Weak Link in Westcott’s Argument: Opening the Door to non-Apostolic Authorship

Westcott popularized a line of argumentation consisting of five steps which are intended to identify the author of the FG (who is the BD for Westcott) with the Apostle

104

John.330 Morris claims that “nobody seems to have dealt adequately with his massive argument.”331 However, those who reject Johannine authorship do not need to contest all of Westcott’s steps. For example, those who identify Lazarus or the Elder John as the author of the FG accept the first three: the author of the FG was a Jew, he was a Jew of

Palestine, and he was an eye-witness to what he describes in the FG.332 The heart of the controversy lies with step four: the author of the FG was an apostle. If Westcott is correct about this, then step five, the author is the Apostle John, is hard to contest.333 From step four it is argued that since the BD stands in a particularly close relationship with Jesus, he must be within the inner circle of the apostles: Peter, James, and John. Out of these three

John is the best candidate since Peter is clearly not the BD, and James was martyred early

(Acts 12:2).334 The validity of step four functions not only to lead to Johannine authorship, but it also excludes Lazarus and the Elder John as plausible options.335 It will be helpful, then, to look more closely at whether or not the BD was one of the apostles.336

330 Scholars who argue for Johannine authorship typically use a form of Westcott’s process of elimination. E.g., Morris, John, 5-7; Carson, John, 71-72; Keener, John, 1:89. 331 Morris, John, 5. 332 Westcott, John, ix-xliv. Westcott gives considerable evidence for each one of these propositions. See Barrett, John, 101-104, who argues that the Gospel is not the work of a Palestinian Jew or an eyewitness. 333 Westcott, John, xliv-lii. 334 Westcott, John, xlv-xlvi. Charlesworth argues that the BD is not one of the inner circle, but is Thomas, see Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. 335 Morris, John, 6; Keener, John, 1:86. 336 The evidence that the witness behind the FG was a Palestinian Jew and an eyewitness has been delimited many times. Concerning a Palestinian Jew, the author had accurate knowledge of geographical and historical details concerning Jerusalem as well as knowledge of Jewish customs, festivals, Messianic expectation, and Rabbinic tradition (Hengel, Johannine Question, 110-113; W. H. Brownlee, “Whence the Gospel According to John?” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 183; Morris, John, 8-12; Smalley, Evangelist and Interpreter, 59-68; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 12-13; Macgregor, John, lxiv; Brown, Gospels and Epistles, 10). Furthermore, the text seems to have Aramaisms (Hengel, Johannine Question, 110-111; Brownlee, Whence John, 185-187; C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, [Oxford: Claredon Press], 1922, esp. 126-7), although Burney’s theory that an original Aramaic text underlies the FG cannot be proven. Concerning the internal evidence which suggests the witness was eyewitness see Morris, Studies in the Fourth, 139-214; Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 74-97; and the discussion on Jn 21:24.

105

The main argument used to identify the BD with one of the apostles is that since only the apostles were present at the Last Supper, and since the BD was present, then he was one of the apostles.337 However, scholars have recognized that neither Jn 13 nor the

Synoptics (Mt 26:20; Mk 14:17; Lk 22:14) restrict the meal to the Twelve.338 Indeed, at least, the host would normally be present, and this host was probably not an apostle for it is unlikely that a Galilean owned a house in Jerusalem.339 Moreover, in Luke, when Jesus leaves the Last Supper his company is not restricted to the Twelve, but he is with his disciples in general (Lk 22:39). Also, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus is with his disciples when he arrives in Gethsemane (Mk 14:32; Mt 26:36). One could infer from this that the Synoptics highlight the Twelve at the Last Supper rather than restrict the participants in the Last Supper to them.

The probability that more than the Twelve were present at the Last Supper is the weak link in Westcott's process of elimination, and it allows for the possibility that a non- apostle such as Lazarus or the Elder John is the BD. Now that we have shown that a non- apostle could be the BD, we will begin evaluating the arguments used to identify the BD, starting with the arguments concerning the Apostle John.

Arguments that Support and Oppose Johannine Authorship

The three main arguments, based on the internal evidence, that support Johannine authorship are: the appearance of the sons of Zebedee in Jn 21, the appearance of the BD

337 Carson, John, 71, 72-73; Morris, John, 6; Schnackenburg, John, 1:98. R. E. Brown in his AB Commentary argued this point (Brown, John, xcvi), but later rejected Johannine authorship, which shows the uncertainty of this argument (Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple [New York: Paulist Press, 1979], 33. 338 Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 74; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 31. 339 Witherington, What Have They Done, 153.

106 at the Last Supper in Jn 13, and the relationship between the BD and Peter and between

John and Peter.340

First, in John 21 the sons of Zebedee accompany Peter to fish in Galilee along with

Thomas, Nathanael, and two other unnamed disciples (Jn 21:1-3). Since the BD appears in this story (Jn 21:7), he is probably one of the disciples with Peter, and therefore, it is possible that he is the Apostle John. But, scholars quickly point out that this identification is not necessary and that the BD could easily be one of the two unnamed disciples.341

Secondly, the fact that the BD was present at the Last Supper leads some to argue that he must have been one of the Twelve. Since he had a special position next to Jesus he was one of the inner circle: Peter, James, or John, and, as we saw above, John is the best option. However, we also argued above that the Last Supper was not necessarily restricted to the Twelve.

Finally, one can argue that since the BD stands in a similar relationship to Peter in the

FG as the Apostle John does to Peter in Acts (Ac 1:13; 3:1, 3, 4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14), then the Apostle John and the BD are the same person.342 However, to ensure Johannine authorship one would have to argue that the Apostle John was the only disciple that was a close friend to Peter.

Although Johannine authorship is made plausible by these three arguments, it has endured an intense critique during the last century. For example, in an often cited article,

340 Paul Anderson makes an insightful observation that from Acts 4:19-20 that can be formulated into an argument for Johannine authorship. When speaking to rulers, elders, and scribes, Peter and John speak in a typical Johannine fashion, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Ac 4:19-20, NASB) (Paul Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: It’s Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 [Oregon: Cascade Books, 2010], 274-277). 341 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 97-98; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 14. Barrett sees a difficulty in the fact that neither John or James are mentioned in the gospel, but only collectively in the appendix (Barrett, John, 97). 342 Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 73; Carson, John, 72; Brown, John, xcvii.

107

P. Parker outlined 21 arguments against identifying the Apostle John with the author of the FG.343 Below we outline three arguments against Johannine authorship and reserve the rest to be considered in conjunction with arguments in favor of identifying Lazarus with the BD.

First, one type of argument against Johannine authorship can be formulated like this: since the BD is portrayed as Peter’s equal, then the Apostle John cannot be the BD because the Apostle John was Peter’s subordinate. Specific examples of this include

Griffith’s argument that since the BD occupied places of prominence that Peter did not occupy, such as knowing the High Priest and being entrusted with knowledge of who would betray Jesus, then he cannot be the Apostle John, who was subordinate to Peter.344

In response to this type of argument Keener reasons that only one of the Twelve could be viewed as a competitor to Peter.345 Another argument based on the Apostle John’s inferiority to Peter is put forward by Eller. He argues that since John was a subordinate to

Peter, it is hard to accept that John would endorse a rival gospel in which he is a rival with Peter.346 In turn, Brown gives a similar type of rebuttal as Keener. He reasons that it is because the FG challenges the synoptic tradition that the the author is likely John since the one making the challenge to the Synoptics must have the authority to do so.347

The second argument against Johannine authorship is that the temperament of the

Apostle John does not square with that of the BD. For example, John and his brother are nicknamed the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), and they display this by desiring to call

343 P. Parker, “John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 35-43. 344 B. Grey Griffith, “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.” The Expository Times 32 (1921): 379. 345 Keener, John, 1:85. 346 Vernard Eller, The Beloved Disciple: His Name, His Story, His Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 45-6. 347 Brown, John, xcvii.

108 down fire from heaven on the Samaritans (Lk 9:54). Often scholars who support

Johannine authorship miss the point of this argument and respond that, over the six decades from when John followed Jesus to when he wrote the gospel in Ephesus, he could have been changed into a person who could write a gospel of love and who has the temperament of the BD.348 However, this argument against Johannine authorship does not deny that he could have changed, but it argues that the character of John during Jesus’ ministry does not line up with the BD’s character during the same period. Macgregor puts it well when he says “the title ‘Beloved Disciple’ has reference not to the Apostle’s old age, but to the days of his ‘thundering.’”349

Finally, if the Apostle John was the BD, then we would not expect to see the apologetic, which spans the FG, that attempts to establish the reliability of the BD’s witness because an apostle would already be regarded as trustworthy. For example, the

Evangelist compares the BD’s witness to Jesus with Jesus’ witness to the Father (Jn

13:23; 1:18), and calls this fact to mind immediately before he reveals that the BD is the authority behind what has been written (Jn 21:20, 24). The Evangelist shows that the BD was a witness to Jesus’ betrayal, arrest and trial, crucifixion and death, empty tomb, and resurrection. Furthermore, he argues that the BD is a reliable source of tradition about

Jesus’ life by showing that he lived with Jesus’ mother. One of the Twelve needs no such apologetic to establish his witness.

Arguments that Support and Oppose Lazarian Authorship

The arguments in support of Lazarian authorship are: (1) details about Lazarus in Jn

11-12 prepare the reader to identify him with the BD in Jn 13:23; (2) identifying Lazarus

348 Keener, John, 1:104; Carson, John, 74. 349 Macgregor, John, lxv.

109 as the BD clarifies a number of facts in the FG in light of his resurrection; and, (3) the

BD’s friendship to Jesus and his knowledge that Jesus must die are best explained if he is

Lazarus.

The core of the case for identifying Lazarus of Bethany350 with the BD is that some details about Lazarus in Jn 11-12 prepare the reader to identify him with the BD when he appears in Jn 13:23. In Jn 11:3 Mary says of Lazarus, “he whom you love [ὃν φιλεῖς] is sick”, and in v. 36 the Jews, seeing Jesus weep, declare, “See how he loved [ἐφίλει] him.”

Also, in Jn 12:2 the Evangelist recounts that Lazarus was reclining [ἀνακειμένων] with

Jesus during supper. When the BD appears for the first time in Jn 13:23, the two attributes that the Evangelist predicates about this disciple are ones he used to describe

Lazarus; the BD is one who was reclining [ἦν ἀνακείμενος] with Jesus and whom Jesus loved [ὃν ἠγάπα]. These clues suggest that the BD is Lazarus.351 To supplement this argument, one can observe that, in Jn 11:3, Mary describes Lazarus to Jesus as “he whom you love” without mentioning Lazarus’ name, and that Jesus recognizes Lazarus from this title. Mary’s address and Jesus’ recognition suggest that Lazarus was commonly addressed as “the one whom Jesus loves,” and, therefore, further connects him with the

BD who also is referred to as one ‘whom Jesus loves’.352

350 Although some argue Lazarus was not historical, Stibbe makes a good case that he was (Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992] 80-81). Also for a discussion on the location of Bethany of Mary and Martha and the separate location of the “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (Jn 1:28) see (Brownlee, Whence John, 167-174). 351 Witherington, What Have They Done, 146, 151; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 14; Brownlee, Whence John, 192; Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 53-54; Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380; Floyd Vivian Filson, “Who Was the Beloved Disciple?” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 85; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 31. 352 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 78. In light of these connections, Filson argued that the first readers read the FG without knowledge of the 2nd century tradition, and so they would have identified Lazarus with the BD (Filson, “Who Was the BD,” 83-85). One could object that this argument does not take into account the superscript, “according to John” which Hengel argues was attached to the Gospel once it began to circulate (Hengel, Johannine Question, 66-84). However, not everyone agrees with Hengel, for instance Witherington thinks that the superscription was not attached to the Gospel until 125 C.E. (Witherington,

110

Charlesworth objects to identifying Lazarus with the BD based on the fact that

Lazarus was loved by Jesus (Jn 11:3, 36). He argues that these statements about Lazarus lose their weight since the FG also records that Jesus loved Mary and Martha (11:5) and all of his disciples (Jn 13:1, 34).353 But, surely, the facts that the Evangelist specifically singles out Lazarus as loved by Jesus, and that Jesus recognized Lazarus from the title

“he whom You love” foregrounds Jesus’ love for Lazarus over his love for the others.

In addition to the connection between Jn 11-12 and Jn 13, one can argue that by postulating Lazarus as the BD a number of facts in the FG are clarified in light of his resurrection.354 Filson argues that there are three such facts: why the BD grasps the truth of the resurrection when he sees Jesus’ empty tomb,355 why the BD is the first to recognize the risen Christ on the shore at Tiberius, and how the rumor that the BD would not die was disseminated.356

Although Filson’s argument is clever, it is not clear that Lazarus’ resurrection clarifies the first two facts, and how Lazarus’ resurrection clarifies the third fact needs to be clarified itself. In regards to the first fact, it is not certain that the BD believed that

Jesus had been raised from the dead when he beheld the empty tomb. This study concluded that the content of the BD’s belief was Mary Magdalene’s report that someone had stolen Jesus’ corpse. So, for the sake of consistency, Filson’s first point must be rejected. Concerning Filson’s second point, the connection between the fact that the BD is the first one to identify the risen Christ and the fact that Jesus resurrected him is thin.

John’s Wisdom, 11). But, even if the superscription was attached once it began to circulate, this would not restrict the early readers from identifying the BD with Lazarus because, as is argued below, this John could have been understood as the compiler and arranger of the BD’s materials, much like Mark was to Peter. 353 Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 290. 354 Filson, “Who Was the BD,” 87-88. Filson first grouped these facts under one category. 355 See also, Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380. 356 Filson, “Who Was the BD,” 87-88.

111

The primary cause for this identification is the miraculous catch of fish. Granted the BD recognized Jesus first, but how does the fact that he had been raised give him the edge?

Among Filson’s three facts that Lazarus’ resurrection clarifies, the third is the most widely used by those who espouse Lazarian authorship. Scholars have formulated this argument in various ways,357 but Witherington extracts the force of it by pointing out that Jesus’ statement “If I want him to remain until I come back, then what is that to you?” is deliberately unambiguous.358 Witherington is highlighting the fact that Jesus makes no firm statement concerning whether he wants the BD to remain or not. So the question is, if the statement is ambiguous, then what caused the brethren to think that

Jesus actually wanted the BD to remain? One can argue that if Lazarus is the BD, then this would explain why the brethren leaned towards the interpretation that Jesus wanted him to remain: Lazarus had experienced a resurrection already, which meant he might not die again.359

In addition to these three facts that Filson identified, two more facts that are best explained in light of Lazarus’ resurrection can be added to the list. First, Stibbe points out that the distinctive theme of life in the FG is explained if the BD is Lazarus since we would expect a man who has been raised to life to reflect on that very theme.360 Secondly, identifying Lazarus as the BD explains why Jesus’ words in Jn 5:25 and 5:28 were included: Lazarus had actually experienced these words. Jn 5:25 reads “Truly, truly, I say

357 Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380; Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 80; Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 72; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 31; Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 74. 358 Witherington, What Have They Done, 163. For further comments by Witherington on this argument, see (Witherington, What Have They Done, 147, 155). 359 But, one could argue that this rumor could spread about a Galilean fisherman by virtue of the fact that Jesus may have meant that he did not want John to die: that Jesus alluded to this is enough for the interpretation to gain some momentum. This is true, however, the point being made above is that the interpretation of Jesus’ statement could go either way, but if the BD is Lazarus, then it becomes more likely for the interpretation that Jesus actually wanted the BD to remain to arise. 360 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 81.

112 to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice [φωνῆς] of the

Son of God, and those who hear will live,” and Jn 5:28-29 reads, “for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs [μνημείοις] will hear His voice [φωνῆς] and will come forth [ἐκπορεύσονται].” Lazarus experienced these words when Jesus raised him from the dead: Lazarus was dead in a tomb [μνημεῖον] (Jn 11:38) and heard the voice [φωνή] of the Son of God commanding him to come forth [δεῦρο] (Jn 11:43), he did come forth

[ἐξέρχομαι] (Jn 11:44), and he lived.361

Finally, there is one more argument to consider which suggests that Lazarus is the

BD. In our discussion on Jn 13:29, we argued that the BD did not prevent Judas from betraying Jesus, and, therefore, did not prevent Jesus’ death because he was acting as an ideal friend whose views and values were in harmony with Jesus’. Positing Lazarus as the

BD explains two further details concerning how the BD is depicted in Jesus’ betrayal.

First, it explains the background behind Jesus and the BD’s friendship. The Evangelist depicts Lazarus as Jesus’ friend when Jesus calls Lazarus Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν (Jn

11:11), and twice he writes that Jesus loves (φιλέω) Lazarus like a friend (Jn 11:3, 36).

Secondly, identifying Lazarus as the BD explains how he understands that Jesus must die. Mary, Lazarus’ sister, lives in the realm of understanding concerning Jesus’ death

(12:1f), so this understanding may be extended to Lazarus, one from Mary’s household.362 Also, Lazarus may have recognized that his own death had glorified God

(Jn 11:4), and, therefore, would be encouraged to trust that Jesus’ death would as well (Jn

13:31-32; 17:1-5).

361 For a different interpretation of Lazarus in relation to Jn 5:25 see Brownlee, Whence John, 192. 362 Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380.

113

These three arguments strongly support the hypothesis that Lazarus was the BD, but this hypothesis is not free from critique. Some aspects of the internal evidence do not seem to square with the Lazarus hypothesis, so here we evaluate the most forceful arguments against identifying Lazarus with the BD.363

The most common argument brought against identifying Lazarus with the BD is that it is hard to explain why the author uses Lazarus’ name in Jn 11-12, but suddenly uses the anonymous title of the BD to refer to him later without ever explicitly equating the two figures.364 However, as is argued above, the Evangelist links Lazarus to the BD’s first appearance in Jn 13:23 by referring to Lazarus as one whom Jesus loves (Jn 11:3, 36) and who reclined with Jesus (Jn 12:2). Furthermore, it is not certain that the Evangelist purposed to keep the BD anonymous, some scholars have argued that the FG’s audience would have recognized to whom the title ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ referred.365

Secondly, if Lazarus’ life was at risk from the chief priests (Jn 12:10-11), how is it that he could move freely in the high priest’s court (Jn 18:15-16)?366 There are two answers to this objection. To begin with, since the chief priests had considerable trouble arresting Jesus and finding a suitable charge that would convince Pilate to crucify him, they would not complicate matters by trying to convince Pilate to kill a second innocent

363 Scholars bring various other arguments against the Lazarus hypothesis. Keener argues that if the BD is Lazarus of Bethany, who is apparently an aristocrat, why is he in Galilee fishing shortly after Jesus’ resurrection? (Keener, John, 1:86). The BD’s presence in Galilee can be explained by the fact that Mary Magdalene was ordered to tell Peter and the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 26:32), and Lazarus, if the BD, would be part of this group. Rigg argues that if Lazarus was so close to Jesus why wasn’t he included in the inner circle at Gethsemane? (H. Rigg, “Was Lazarus ‘the Beloved Disciple’?” The Expository Times February 33 [1922]: 232-3). Charlesworth amasses 8 arguments against Lazarus. Arguments 1-4 and 6 are unpersuasive because they assume that Lazarus is not the BD. If Lazarus turns out to be the BD, then his objections are met. In argument 5 he questions whether Lazarus is a real person and in question 7 he asks how Lazarus could outrun Peter to Jesus’ tomb after being raised from the dead a few days ago (Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 289-291). 364 Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 77; Brown, John, xcv; Lincoln, Saint John, 378; Schnackenburg, John, 3:385; Garvie, The Beloved Disciple, 234. 365 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 29-30; Kurz, “BD and Implied Readers,” 101. 366 Rigg, “Was Lazarus the BD,” 232-3.

114 man. In other words, the chief priests were close to dispatching the ring-leader and did not want to risk that opportunity. Secondly, since the BD was known to the high priest

(Jn 18:15), it may have afforded Lazarus a measure of protection from the schemes of the other chief priests.

Finally, Keener argues that the BD’s prominence in Jesus’ circle excludes Lazarus because the BD “assumes a role that the Synoptic tradition would allow only for one of the Twelve, and probably for one of the three (Peter, James, and John).”367 But Keener’s focus on the Twelve and Synoptic tradition is exactly what the FG tries to combat. The

FG argues that the Galilean disciples were not the only followers of Jesus: he had a group of Judean disciples (Jn 7:3,368 8:31), prominent followers such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (?), and followers from Judea whom he loved (Lazarus and his sisters).

So Keener is correct, the role that the BD assumes may be a role that the Synoptics would only give to the Twelve; however, the FG is a different Gospel, one that elevates Jesus’

Judean disciples.

The hypothesis that Lazarus authored the FG has formidable arguments to support it, and is further reinforced by the fact that if he is the BD, then it clarifies a number of details in the FG. These arguments deserve attention instead of being dismissed without being engaged.369

367 Keener, John, 1:86. 368 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 156, who suggests that Lazarus may have been a leader among these Judean disciples. 369 Some scholars dismiss the Lazarus hypothesis without giving any reasons, e.g., Carson, John, 72- 73; Schnackenburg, John, 3:385. Carson simply says that the evidence that Lazarus is the BD is “notoriously speculative.”

115

Facts in the Fourth Gospel that are Better Explained by Lazarus than the Apostle John

We have surveyed the arguments that support and oppose identifying either the

Apostle John or Lazarus with the BD. In addition to these arguments, there are a number of details in the FG that are explained better if Lazarus is the BD than if the Apostle John is the BD.

The first argument is twofold. To begin with, the theological and literary sophistication displayed by the FG argues that either the Witness or Evangelist (or both) was learned. Second, the accounts of Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21, Jn 19:38-42), the BD’s knowledge of what happened in meetings of the chief-priests (Jn 7:45-52), his acquaintance with the high priest (Jn 18:15), and knowledge about Jesus’ interrogation by

Annas (Jn 18:12-24), all suggest that the BD was part of the upper class.370 Therefore, since the Gospel reflects the mind of someone from the educated upper class, Lazarus is more probably the BD than the Apostle John.

To understand this argument, it will be helpful to discuss the education and social status of both Lazarus and the Apostle John. It seems clear that the Apostle John was not from the educated upper class because he was a lower-class fisherman, and therefore probably uneducated.371 But, some argue that the Apostle John may have been part of a higher class than is often assumed. Zebedee had hired workers (Mk 1:20), a fact which suggests John came from a family of means. Concerning his intelligence, evidence for the fact that John was uneducated is inferred from his trade as a fisherman, and from the observation by the elite in Jerusalem that Peter and John were uneducated [ἀγράμματοί]

(Acts 4:13). Lightfoot observes that the problem with Johannine authorship here is that

370 Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 55. 371 Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 46, 64; Burney, Aramaic Origin, 133.

116 we have to suppose that John of Zebedee came to understand “much that was beyond him” from the time when he followed Jesus.372 But, that John developed his intellect is not impossible. Scholars point to the example of Rabbi Akiba, an influential scholar, who was an unlettered farmer until the age of forty.373 Furthermore, the level of learning displayed in the FG is not unattainable for an ex-fisherman, it is a far cry from the sophistication of a Philo.374

So it is plausible that the Apostle John became intellectually cultivated enough to produce the FG, and maybe even knew some of the upper class in Jerusalem; however,

Lazarus more easily meets these two criteria. The facts that many Jews (probably Jewish officials) came to mourn Lazarus, and that Mary used expensive nard to anoint Jesus suggests Lazarus’ family was an upper-class family.375 Lazarus’ affluence, in turn, taken in conjunction with the fact that he lived only two miles from Jerusalem, also makes it likely that he received a good education.

Second, if Lazarus is the BD, then this better explains how the BD was known to the

High Priest: Lazarus was part of the upper-class and lived two miles outside of Jerusalem in Bethany, whereas the Apostle John was a fisherman from Galilee.376 This argument rests on the assumption that the BD is the ‘ἄλλος μαθητής in 18:15; three reasons support

372 R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, ed. C. F. Evans (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 4. 373 Hugo Odeberg, “The Authorship of St John's Gospel,” Concordia Theological Monthly 22 (1951): 238-239; Carson, John, 74. Keener gives other reasons to show how a Galilean fisherman from a family of means like the son of Zebedee (Mk 1:20) could have been more literate than is often assumed (Keener, John, 1:101). 374 Schnackenburg, John, 1:94-7. 375 Witherington, What Have They Done, 149. 376 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 79; Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 71; Witherington, What Have They Done, 147; Brownlee, Whence John, 192; Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380; Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 76. Some have argued that the Apostle John could have become known to the high priest because he delivered fish to Annas’ house, or that since fish was brought into Jerusalem through the Fish Gate, John could have become familiar with the servant-girl and the high-priest’s household through exchanging fish here; he may even have had a place in the city (Robinson, Priority of John, 116-7; Carson, John, 74-5).

117 this identification. To start with, Jn 20:2 places “the one whom Jesus loved” in apposition to “the other disciple”: τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς. The apposition seems to be an attempt to identify the other disciple in 18:15 as the BD.377 Second, it explains how the author of the FG knows that the servant of the high-priest, who had his ear cut off by

Peter, was named , and that another servant of the high-priest, who accused Peter of being with Jesus, was a relative of this Malchus (Jn 18:26).378 Finally, the other disciple’s association with Peter, which seems to be a mark of the BD in the FG, would argue for this identification.379

Third, identifying Lazarus with the BD makes more sense of the details in the scene when Jesus entrusts his mother to the BD than identifying the Apostle John with the BD does. In the first place, Lazarus lived near Jerusalem and could easily take Mary into his home “from that hour.” However, John was from Galilee and could hardly take Mary into his home so quickly.380 Secondly, it is hard to imagine that Jesus would entrust his mother to one he called to leave his family and be an itinerant preacher such as the

Apostle John. But, Lazarus was not an apostle, nor an itinerant since he probably did not accompany Jesus during his Galilean ministry.381

In conjunction with the scene at the cross, some argue that the Lazarus hypothesis better explains the BD’s presence at Jesus’ crucifixion since the Apostle John had

377 Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 58. Culpepper also discusses the suggestion that the ‘other disciple’ in 18:15 is and dismisses it as implausible. 378 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 100-10. 379 Brown, John, xciv. 380 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 79; Griffith, “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved,” 380; Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 71; Brownlee, Whence John, 192. Robinson rebuts this point by arguing that John owned a house in Jerusalem (Robinson, Priority of John, 117). 381 Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 75; Sanders and Mastin, according to John, 30.

118 presumably abandoned Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk 14:50; Mt 26:56).382 However, one defending the Lazarus hypothesis cannot make this argument without special pleading.

For, if Lazarus was present at the Last Supper, then he was probably present in

Gethsemane, and, therefore, he would be included as one of the ‘all’ who fled Jesus (Mk

14:50; Mt 26:56). So, if one can make an exception and say that Lazarus followed Jesus as the ‘other disciple’ (Jn 18:15) and later turned up at the cross, then there is no reason that the Apostle John could not have done the same.383

Fourth, the FG focuses on Jesus’ Judean ministry to the relative neglect of Jesus’

Galilean ministry when compared to the Synoptics.384 This Judean focus suggests that the

BD was only a witness of Jesus’ Judean ministry. Therefore, since Lazarus is from Judea and doesn’t appear to accompany Jesus to Galilee, he is more likely the BD than the

Apostle John, who is from Galilee and doesn’t appear to accompany Jesus to Jerusalem until Passion Week.

Those who rebut this argument counter that it is an argument from silence, and suggest that perhaps the Apostle John was trying not to repeat material,385 or that John is more interested in Judea because of his theological concerns.386 But, the argument based on the FG’s Judean focus is still forceful if one can show that the Apostle John had good

382 Witherington, What Have They Done, 147; Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 75; Barrett, John, 98 (note, Barrett does not use this as an argument for Lazarus, rather he points it out as an inconsistency with Johannine authorship). 383 Keener, John, 1:90. 384 Ibid., 145, 147; Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 14; Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 75-6; Hengel, Johannine Question, 124. 385 Borchert, John 1-11, 84-85. 386 Morris, John, 12. Morris suggests that John “regarded Jerusalem as the place where the Messiah must be accepted or rejected, so he put his emphasis on what took place there.” However, Morris gives no evidence to back this claim, and even so, we may ask, did not the writers of the synoptics hold this same view? See also Schnackenburg, John, 1:93, who also argued that John focuses on Judea because of theological concerns. However, by the third volume of his commentary he changed his position, asserting rather that if the Apostle John was the author, then we would expect there to be more emphasis on Galilean episodes (Schnackenburg, John, 3:383-4).

119 reason to record some of the events he witnessed in Galilee. One such event is the transfiguration.387 There are two reasons why we would expect John to record this event.

First, because the “we” in the Prologue testify that “we saw his glory” (Jn 1:14).388 If the

Apostle John is the main witness who lies behind this material, it is hard to explain why the transfiguration would be omitted when it clearly displayed Jesus’ glory (Lk 9:29-31; cf. Mk 9:3-4; Mt 17:2-3). Secondly, the transfiguration event would fit well into the FG theme of juxtaposing the BD and Peter in reference to Jesus.389 Therefore, since the transfiguration is not recorded, in light of the fact that John had good reasons to do so, he is probably not the BD.

Arguments that Support and Oppose Identifying the Elder John with the Beloved Disciple

Scholars rarely use the internal evidence to make arguments which support identifying the BD with the Elder John; rather, they use it to show that the BD must be someone other than the Apostle John. When one takes the fact that the Apostle John did not author the FG in conjunction with the external evidence that identifies the author of the FG (and the BD) with a John and the evidence for the existence of an Elder John separate from the Apostle, then the Elder John hypothesis becomes a plausible option.

387 Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 14-15; Eller, The Beloved Disciple, 48. 388 Interestingly Keener suggests that the omission of the transfiguration fits the theological Tendenz displayed in Jn 1:14 (Keener, John, 1:100-1). 389 Morris argues that there is no place for the Transfiguration in a literary scheme “where one of the major themes is that Jesus’ glory was manifest continually in the path of lowly service, and that it was pre- eminently shown on the cross” (Morris, John, 13). But, even if one accepts that this literary theme is present in the FG, one could show that Jesus’ glory was manifested in more ways than lowly service, as exemplified in raising someone from the dead (Jn 11), overturning the money-changers’ tables (Jn 2:13- 22), standing up and crying out in a loud voice at the feast of booths (Jn 7:1-39), and claiming to be God (Jn 10:22-42).

120

Other than refuting that the Apostle John is the BD, the internal evidence has one other use for the Elder John hypothesis. Once a profile of the BD is built from the passages in which he appears, these characteristics are applied to the Elder John in an attempt to describe him. So it will be helpful to draw out these characteristics from the analysis completed thus far and summarize them in one place.390

The BD was a figure whose authority was equal to Peter’s, but who had a different ministry than Peter: Peter was a shepherd, the BD a witness to Jesus’ work and teaching.

He was a witness to Jesus’ betrayal (Jn 13:21-30), arrest and trial (Jn 18:15-17), crucifixion and death (19:25-27, 35), empty tomb (Jn 20:1-10), and resurrection (Jn 21).

He was also a witness to other traditions about Jesus by virtue of living with Jesus’ mother (Jn 19:25-27). He probably lived to an old age (Jn 21:20-23) and had a community of followers (Jn 21:24-25; 19:35). Furthermore, he was a non-itinerant

Judean disciple who was part of the educated upper-class, and he was a close friend of

Jesus’. If the Elder John is the BD, then all these characteristics can be transferred to him.

To develop an instance of the above position, that the internal evidence is rarely used to argue that the BD is the Apostle John, the fact that the BD is from the upper-class, educated, and known to the high-priest could be used to argue that the Elder John is the

BD. Polycrates of Ephesus identifies the BD as a John and asserts that he was a priest who wore the petalon (Hist. eccl. 5.24.2-4).391 If Polycrates is not inferring these details from the FG, and if his John is the Elder John and a priest,392 then Jn 18:15-17 could be used to argue for the Elder John hypothesis.

390 The characteristics that I outline, scholars have observed many times, this is simply a summary of the BD’ characteristics based on the research completed thus far. 391 See the discussion in the chapter one under ‘Polycrates of Ephesus’. 392 See Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 37-50 esp. 47-50.

121

CONCLUSION

Our exegesis revealed that the Evangelist’s purpose for including the passages about the BD that he does is to establish the BD as an ideal witness to Jesus’ work and revelation. This apologetic is an attempt to gain legitimacy for the FG tradition alongside the Synoptic tradition, but not a bid to elevate the FG tradition over it. Furthermore, the apologetic to establish the BD as an ideal witness argues against identifying the BD with the Apostle John, since one of the Twelve would already be regarded as a reliable witness to Jesus’ life and message.

The strongest arguments that can be forged using the FG’s internal evidence are those that support the hypothesis that Lazarus was the BD. The Evangelist prepares the reader to equate the BD with Lazarus by identifying Lazarus as ‘he whom you love’ and as one who reclines at the table with Jesus. Furthermore, Lazarus’ resurrection and friendship with Jesus clarifies many details in the FG.

And so, we see a discrepancy in the external and internal evidence concerning the authorship of the FG: the external evidence supports that the Apostle John authored the

FG, whereas the internal evidence supported identifying the BD with Lazarus. The hypothesis for the Elder John is a way to make sense of how the external evidence can be associated with a John and the conviction that the internal evidence strongly contradicts tradition Johannine authorship. In our evaluation of proposed solutions to the question of,

‘who authored the FG?’ the best theory will be the one which can best explain the external and internal evidence which we have analyzed thus far.

122

CHAPTER FOUR: AN EVALUATION OF THE THEORIES OF

AUTHORSHIP FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL

INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, we completed exegeses on each passage in the FG in which the BD appears, and we analyzed the arguments, which were derived from the internal evidence, that support or oppose identifying the BD with the Apostle John, the

Elder John, or Lazarus. In this chapter, we will outline the theories which scholars have developed in support of each one of our candidates, and the insights from the previous chapter will then be used to aid us in evaluating the theories. We begin by considering the theories for the Apostle John, then, the Elder John, and finally, Lazarus of Bethany.

THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY THE APOSTLE JOHN AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE AND AUTHOR

Despite the robust challenge mounted against it, traditional Johannine authorship is not extinct.393 Here, we outline several variations of the theory that the Apostle John authored the FG, which some of the foremost Johannine scholars have put forward, and then we offer an evaluation of these theories in light of the analysis in chapters 1 and 2.

We begin by briefly summarizing Westcott’s process of elimination, then we move on to

393 Stramara attempts to outline a chiasm in John 21 which he purposes identified the BD as John, the son of Zebedee (Daniel F Stramara Jr., “The Chiastic Key to the Identity of the Beloved Disciple,” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 53 [2009]: 25–27). Hugo Odeberg judges that the references to the disciple whom Jesus loved in the FG indicate that he was chief among the apostles. The only viable option among the chief apostles (Peter, James, and John) is John the apostle (Hugo Odeberg, “The authorship of St John's Gospel,” 228); see also Borchert, John 1-11, 89-90; Carson, John, 81; Stephen S. Smalley, Evangelist and Interpreter, 81–82.

123

Leon Morris and Craig Keener’s defense of Johannine authorship, and, lastly, we discuss

Raymond Brown and Rudolf Schnackenburg’s acceptance and subsequent rejection of

Johannine authorship.

Westcott’s Process of Elimination

Although we discussed Westcott’s process of elimination in chapter two, because of its influence, it deserves to be briefly outlined here. Westcott popularized a line of argumentation with five steps that identified the author of the FG with the Apostle John.

Since then, many scholars who support Johannine authorship repeat or give variations of

Westcott’s process of elimination.394 Westcott’s formulation runs like this: the author of the FG was a Jew, he was a Jew of Palestine, he was an eye-witness to what he describes in the FG, he was an apostle, he was the Apostle John.395 Both The Elder John and

Lazarus hypotheses accept Westcott’s first three steps.

Morris and Keener: Champions of Johannine Authorship

According to Leon Morris, despite the criticism that has been leveled against

Johannine authorship, identifying the author of the FG with the Apostle John is still the best choice. He suggests that it might be prudent to accept R.V.G. Tasker’s theory that

394 E.g., Carson, John, 71-72; Hendriksen, John, 18-21. It is notable that Hendriksen argues for the last proposition (the BD is an apostle) in a different manner than Westcott. Whereas Westcott quickly cuts down the apostles to the inner three since the BD was so intimate with Jesus, Hendriksen demonstrates how each one of the apostles could not have been the BD, save John. 395 Westcott, John, ix-lii.

124 the “Gospel was authenticated but not written by John;”396 however, he is hesitant to do so when Westcott’s theory has not been adequately refuted.397

In his defense of Johannine authorship, Morris essentially recapitulates Westcott’s process of elimination and provides some new arguments in support as well as rebuttals to recent objections.398 In support of Johannine authorship, Morris stresses that there is no reason for the author to omit reference to a prominent apostle such as John unless the author is John himself.399 Furthermore, he maintains that the Gnostic use of the FG in the mid-second century suggests that the FG was regarded as authoritative during the first half of the second century.400 To defend against recent attacks, he explains the absence of

Galilean tradition on the basis of John’s theological concerns, and he explains the absence of events that John witnessed, such as the Transfiguration, on the basis that they do not fit into the literary scheme of the FG.401 In addition, Morris argues that the paucity of references to the FG before Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 C.E.) is due to the lack of

Christian literature before this time.402

Craig Keener also endorses Westcott’s process of elimination to argue that the internal evidence indicates that the Apostle John authored the FG.403 In fact, Keener claims, Westcott’s argument “marshall[s] more significant internal evidence than do any of the competing hypotheses.”404

396 Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 264; Morris, John, 5. 397 Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 264–65. 398 Morris, John, 5-15. 399 Ibid., 7. 400 Ibid., John, 17. 401 Ibid., see Keener, John, 1:100-1 who suggests John omits these based on his theological Tendenz. 402 Morris, John, 16. 403 Keener, John, 1:89-91. 404 Ibid., 89.

125

In regards to the external evidence, Keener rejects Eusebius’ distinction between the

Apostle John and an Elder John, explaining that Eusebius jumped to this conclusion because he was anxious to find a non-apostolic author for the Revelation. In Keener’s judgment, the Elder John is the Apostle John.405 Indeed, Keener makes the threefold identification of the Apostle John with the BD and the Evangelist, arguing that there is no evidence for separating the Evangelist from the BD.406 But, he nuances his position by suggesting that John probably used a scribe from his own circle of disciples. This scribe may have taken some liberties with the text, but in the end, the tradition depends on the

Apostle John’s witness.407

Brown and Schnackenburg: The Scholars Who Rejected Johannine Authorship

In his monograph The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Brown reconstructed the history of the community which formed itself around the BD as well as the history of the

BD himself.408 Brown suggests that the BD was an idealized but historical character409 who formerly was a disciple of John the Baptist (and possibly the unnamed disciple of

1:35-40), but later himself became the hero of a community.410

According to Brown, the BD has two roles in the FG: first, he is a witness to Jesus; and second, he is the authority for the material in the FG; although, he did not necessary write anything. Concerning this final point, Brown maintains that Jn 21:24, “This is the

405 Keener, John, 1:93-98. Hugo Odeberg’s also argues that the “Elder John” referred to by Papias is the Apostle John. He contends that only the Apostles could properly be referred to as “Elders” by Papias’ generation, and so the “Presbyter” John, distinct from the Apostle John, is merely a fiction (Odeberg, Authorship of John’s Gospel, 248–50). 406 Keener, John, 1:84, 111-12. See Borchert, John 1-11, 90; Carson, John, 81 for similar opinions. 407 Keener, John, 1:114-5. 408 Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. 409 Brown, Community, 31-32; Brown, John, xciv-xcv. 410 Brown, Community, 31-33.

126 disciple…who wrote [γράψας] these things,” does not mean that the BD actually wrote anything down. Rather, γράψας is being used in a causal sense, as in Jn 19:19, “Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross.” 411 The causal interpretation of γράψας separates the BD from the Evangelist who was the principal writer of the text (selecting, arranging, and elaborating on the BD’s recollections), and the redactor who reworked the

Gospel by adding some of the BD’s material (e.g., Jn 21, Jn 1:1-18).412

In his AB commentary on John, Brown argued that the Apostle John was the BD.413

Concerning the composition of the FG, Brown suggested that John was the source of its historical tradition which he shaped through his own preaching, but that one of his foremost disciples gave shape to the basic form of the Gospel as we have it.414 However, when Brown published The Community of the Beloved Disciple in 1979, he retracted his conclusion that the BD was the Apostle John. He did so for two basic reason: first, he became convinced that the external and internal evidence of the FG could not be harmonized; and, secondly, he reasoned that the way that the FG contrasts the BD with

Peter implies that the BD was not included among the same circle of disciples that included John, son of Zebedee.415

Schnackenburg solution to the Johannine question in the first volume of his commentary on John (1965) builds on F. -M. Braun’s suggestion put forward in Jean le

Théologien. Schnackenburg suggested that the Apostle John was the source of material in the FG, but that a later disciple, a Hellenistic-Jew from the diaspora, wrote the FG and

411 Brown, Introduction to John, 189-196; Brown, Gospel and Epistles, 10. 412 Brown, Introduction to John, 78-85. 413 Brown, John, lxxxviii-xcviii 414 Ibid., c-ci 415 Brown, Community, 33-34. Brown calls this the group John of Zebedee is apart of “the group of best-known disciples,” why he does not commit to identifying this group as the Twelve apostles, he does not say.

127 arranged it into its final form (save, perhaps, Jn 21:24-25). This disciple stayed true to the

Spirit of John’s teaching but exerted his own influence on the text as well.416

But, by his third volume (1975), Schnackenburg abandoned his opinion that the

Apostle John wrote the FG based on a consideration of the internal evidence. He reasoned that if the Apostle John were the author, then we would expect there to be more emphasis on Galilean episodes; however, the FG predominately records episodes in

Jerusalem or journeys to it. Moreover, he also reasoned that since the Apostle John was known to the universal church, the Evangelist should have no hesitation to mention his name, especially in Jn 21.417

With these considerations in mind, Schnackenburg suggested that the BD was a contemporary with Jesus, who only witnessed the last events of Jesus’ life. The BD may have been a disciple from Jerusalem, but he was not one of the Twelve. Schnackenburg remained consistent in his position concerning the Evangelist, suggesting that he was possibly an educated Hellenist of Jewish origin who used the BD’s tradition and other sources to form the Gospel.418 Schnackenburg leaves the identity of the BD and

Evangelist anonymous, but he thinks the editors may have identified the BD with the

Apostle John. However, the John that the editors thought was the Apostle may have been

Papias’ Elder John who was a contemporary of Jesus and whom the Johannine Church honored as their authority.419

416 Schnackenburg, John, 1:101-102. 417 Ibid., 3:383-4. 418 Ibid., 3:381. 419 Ibid., 3:386-7.

128

Evaluation

These theories that advocate Johannine authorship are not without merit. Still, a few of the foremost Johannine scholars rejected Johannine authorship because of some of the arguments that have been mounted against it over the last century.420 Nonetheless, simply because Brown and Schnackenburg disavowed Johannine authorship does not mean that the arguments in support of it are less valid. For example, Westcott’s process of elimination, which nearly all scholars who espouse Johannine authorship have adopted in some form, is a sturdy argument. But, it has weaknesses, namely, step four which argues the BD must be an apostle.

Ultimately, there are an overwhelming number of arguments against Johannine authorship, many of which are outlined in chapter two. Two can be mentioned here. First, as mentioned in chapter two, the apologetic in the FG that attempts to establish the BD as an ideal witness is unnecessary if the BD is an apostle. Indeed, part of elevating the BD’s witness involved juxtaposing him with an apostle (Peter) which shows that apostles were already regarded as reliable witnesses.

Secondly, if the Apostle John is the BD, then this would mean that two contradictory traditions about his death arose while he was still alive. Jn 21:23 states that a tradition was propagated among the brethren that the BD would not die. But, Mk 10:35-40 contains a tradition in which Jesus predicts that John will have a violent death. It is difficult to accept that two contradictory traditions would arise, both based on Jesus’ words, concerning the Apostle John.

420 See Chapter two for an outline of these arguments.

129

THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY THE ELDER JOHN AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OR EVANGELIST

H. K. H. Delff was the first to make the threefold identification of the Elder John with the BD and the Evangelist of the FG.421 Sanday teased out the implication of his thesis, and others such as Macgregor, Burney, and Streeter have built on and modified it.

Recently it has been asserted in its most elaborate form by Martin Hengel and Richard

Bauckham. Below we trace the subsequent history of Delff’s thesis and offer an evaluation of it merits and deficits.

Building on Delff’s Theory

Sanday summarizes Delff’s theory before pointing out its merits. According to Delff, the BD was a youth (15-18 yrs.) from Jerusalem, who was a member of the aristocracy and belonged to the high-priestly family. The BD rarely left Jesus’ side, and he was a

‘supernumerary’ apostle, meaning he was not one of the Twelve while still enjoying their privileges.422 Sanday believes that Delff’s theory simplifies the history of the FG by making the threefold identification of the BD with the author (writer) of John, and with the ‘Presbyter John.’423

Sanday argues that Delff’s theory has a considerable amount of explanatory scope.

Most significantly, it identifies the BD with the ‘other disciple’ of Jn 18:15 and,

421 Bauckham notes that he only knows of three scholars before Hengel that made the threefold identification of the Elder John with the BD and the writer of the FG. I reproduce his bibliography here; H. K. H. Delff, Die Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth (Leipzig: W. Freidrich, 1889); idem, Das vierte Evangelium: Ein authentischer Bericht über Jesus von Nazareth (Husum: C. F. Delff, 1890); C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Claredon, 1922), 133-49; J. Colson, L’énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, Théologie Historique 10 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969) (Bauckham, The Beloved Disciple, 35n11-13). 422 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 98-100. 423 Ibid., 104.

130 therefore, explains how the author can identify Malchus (Jn 18:15), Malchus’ relative (Jn

18:26), the details of secret Sanhedrin meetings, and Annas’ role in Jesus’ trial.424 This identification also explains Polycrates’ statement that John, the BD, wore the petalon: one with high-priestly blood might don high-priestly attire on the right occasion.425

Furthermore, Sanday argues that Delff’s theory explains why Irenaeus and the

Muratorian Fragment assert a John authored the FG, but do not identify him as the

Apostle John: he was possibly another John, who was on mission in the early church.426

In 1922, C. F. Burney put forward the thesis that an Aramaic original lies behind the

Greek version of the FG.427 Burney observed that his thesis had implications for the authorship of the FG, primarily that it was written in Aramaic in Palestine or Syria, and he favored the possibility that it originated in Antioch.428 Burney held that the author was

Papias’ Elder John,429 but that he wrote the Gospel before he moved to Ephesus.430

For the most part, Burney agrees with Delff’s position concerning the BD, however, he diverges from Delff on one key point. Burney is against the idea that this Youth from a priestly family who lives in Jerusalem would be permitted by Jesus to follow him to the extent Delff suggested. Rather, he suggests Jesus would bid him stay home. But, when

Jesus visited Jerusalem, the educated youth would attend Jesus’ debates, appreciating their nuance as the uneducated Galilean disciples could not. If the BD remained in

Jerusalem, this would explain the emphasis that the FG places on events near

424 Ibid., 100-101. 425 Ibid., 102-103. Sanday is not clear on what that occasion might be, but we might suspect . 426 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth, 105-6. 427 C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1922). 428 Burney, Aramaic Origin, 127-132. 429 Ibid., 133-137, 142. 430 Ibid., 127-128.

131

Jerusalem.431 Burney concludes that the BD was a young priestly disciple from Jerusalem who was an eyewitness of the Jerusalem scenes only.432

Streeter and Macgregor: The Elder John, The Evangelist

In 1925, Burnett Streeter identified Papias’ Elder John with the Elder of 2 and 3 John and then argues that the stylistic overlap between the 1-3 John and the FG suggests the

Elder also wrote the FG.433 However, he maintained that John of Patmos, who wrote the

Revelation, was not the Elder John; still, both eventually came to be identified with the

Apostle John.434

According to Streeter, the Elder John was not the BD, and so Streeter diverges from

Delff, Sanday, and Burney by not making the threefold identification. Rather, Streeter explains the origins of the BD this way: at some point, the Elder John meet the Apostle

John and came to venerate him. When he composed the FG (relying somewhat on the

Apostle John for his material, but mostly on Mark and Luke), the Elder John identified the BD with the Apostle John and idealized his character. Jn 21:24 was then added by a group of Ephesian Elders, who erroneously attributed the FG to the BD.435

In regards to the external evidence, Streeter asserted that Irenaeus and Polycrates of

Ephesus misunderstood their authorities and confused the Elder John with the Apostle

431 Ibid., 142-3. 432 Ibid., 148. 433 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 433-434, 458. 434 Ibid., 436. 435 Ibid., 430-433.

132

John.436 Furthermore, he observes that if the Elder John was the writer of the FG, then it explains why some in Rome were hesitant to accept the FG as authentic. 437

George Macgregor endorsed the basics of Delff’s theory concerning the BD: he was a young upper-class Jerusalemite. But, he reduced the amount of intimacy that the BD had with Jesus before Passion week, as Burney had. He suggested that the BD was in intimate fellowship with Jesus during the closing period of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem. At this point, he could be counted as a ‘supernumerary’ of the Twelve, but before then he was only a witness and hearer of Jesus when Jesus visited Jerusalem.438 Concerning the BD’s identity and role, Macgregor suggested that the BD was an anonymous figure who possibly recorded some of what he saw in memoirs.439

So, for Macgregor, the BD was an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, but, as

Streeter had not, he also did not make the threefold identification of the Elder John, the

BD, and the Evangelist. The Evangelist was the Elder John,440 a younger contemporary and disciple of the BD (Witness),441 and he was probably a Jew of Palestine.442 He later moved to Ephesus and in his old age wrote the Gospel down in Aramaic for his church of which he was a leader.443

After the death of the Elder John, a redactor revised the FG and may have translated it from Aramaic to Greek. The redactor rearranged and interpolated material such as Jn

436 Ibid., 442-447. 437 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 436-442. 438 Macgregor, John, xlvi. 439 Ibid., lxiii. 440 Ibid., l-lxii. 441 Ibid., xlviii, lxiv. 442 Ibid., lxiv. 443 Ibid., lxv.

133

21:20-24 which encouraged readers to identify the BD with the Evangelist,444 and eventually to identify both with the Apostle John.445

Hengel and Bauckham: The Threefold Identification

Martin Hengel proposes that the writer of the FG is the Elder of the letters446 who is not the Apostle John, but who is both the John of Ephesus and Papias’s ‘disciple of the

Lord.’447 The Gospel was published not long after the Elder John’s death,448 and Hengel suggests that the title ‘gospel according to John’ was added at this point by his pupils, showing that the Gospel was associated with the Elder John from the beginning.449

Beyond the attributions of the FG to a John during the 2nd century, Hengel provides further evidence for equating the BD with John the Elder. First, Polycrates’ description that his John, the BD, functioned as a high priest may be connected to Jn 18:15-16 which reports that ‘the other disciple’ was known by (or related to) the high-priest. Secondly,

John of Ephesus’ banishment to Patmos may suggest that he was from the upper-class since ordinary folk were executed for serious crimes, but banishment to an island was punishment for the upper class.450

However, Hengel stops short of completing the threefold identification of the Elder

John with the Evangelist and the BD. He thought that the Elder John may have wanted the BD to point to the Apostle John, who was for him the ideal disciple. But, in the end,

444 Ibid., lxvi-lxvii. 445 Ibid., l. 446 Hengel, Johannine Question, 105. 447 Ibid., 74. 448 Ibid., 105. 449 Ibid., 75-76. 450 Hengel, Johannine Question, 125-126.

134

Hengel suggests that the BD is both the Apostle John and the Elder John.451 Summarizing his thoughts on the Elder John, Hengel gives this statement,

His work and name make it probable that he comes from Jewish Palestine, possibly from the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem; the extreme age at which he died around 100 and the designation ‘disciple of the Lord’ in Papias, together with his own claim to be an eyewitness, suggest that in some way as a young man he came into close contact with Jesus in the Holy City and was deeply influenced by him.452 Richard Bauckham finds merit in Martin Hengel’s proposal that Papias’ John the

Elder was both the BD and the writer of the FG.453 To support Hengel’s theory,

Bauckham re-evaluates the letter of Polycrates and the testimony of Papias of Hierapolis to show that they suggest the Elder John is the BD. 454 To further support that the Elder

John wrote the FG, Bauckham is adamant that Jn 21.24 designated the BD as the literal author by arguing that γράψας does not allow for the BD to be less than the writer.455

Bauckham gives a concise summary of his position,

In Asia, the tradition from Papias early in the second century to Polycrates at its end was that this John, the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel, was John the Elder, a disciple of the Lord but not one of the Twelve, who had died in Ephesus.456 According to Bauckham, dissent from this tradition began in the third century, and, at that point, the Elder John became conflated with the Apostle John.457

Although Bauckham is impressed with Hengel’s thesis, he modifies Hengel’s proposal in three ways. First, he thinks that Hengel has unnecessarily complicated his thesis by suggesting that the BD may be portrayed as both the Apostle John and the Elder

451 Ibid., 132. 452 Ibid., 131. 453 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 34. 454 Ibid., 37-72. 455 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 29. 456 Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 68. 457 Ibid., 68-72.

135

John.458 So Bauckham brings Hengel’s theory more in line with the threefold identification of the Elder John, the BD, and the writer of the FG by dispelling any interpretations of the FG that suggest that the BD might be the Apostle John.459

Second, Bauckham contests Hengel’s claim that the BD is intentionally enigmatic.460

Bauckham argues that in Jn 21:23 we see that the school thought they knew who the BD was otherwise the rumor that he would not die would be of no interest. Further, in light of

Jn 21:23, Jn 21:24 refers to the individual of Jn 21:22; there is no ambiguity.461

Finally, Bauckham takes issue with Hengel’s position that the BD represents the ideal disciple.462 Bauckham agrees that the BD is in some sense idealized, but he also claims that the BD is portrayed in ways that qualify him as a witness, and therefore as the ideal author.463

Evaluation

Bauckham says that he is attracted to Hengel’s solution (the threefold identification of the Elder John with the BD and the Evangelist) because it explains both the internal and external evidence without setting them against each other.464 To this theories’ merit, the identification of the Elder John with the Evangelist adequately explains the attributions of the FG to a John during the second century. However, does the identification of the Elder

John with the BD account for the internal evidence? In evaluation of this question, one may point out that there is no evidence that the Elder John was from Judea or Jerusalem.

458 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 24. 459 Ibid., 24-27. 460 Hengel, Johannine Question, 128. 461 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 29-30. 462 Hengel, Johannine Question, 78-80. 463 Bauckham, “Ideal Author,” 33-42. 464 Ibid.,” 21-22.

136

Moreover, Polycrates’ description that John of Ephesus wore the petalon is the only piece of evidence that links this John with the FG (via Jn 18:15-16); but, his tradition could be a later elaboration based on Jn 18:15-16. Indeed, the only piece of internal evidence for the Elder John is indirect, namely, the evidence that the Apostle John was not the BD.

This is the weakness with equating the Elder John with the BD: it does not adequately take into account the internal evidence of the FG. We learn from analyzing the BD that he must have been an aristocratic disciple of Jesus’s from Judea, who was possibly known to the high-priest, and who did not accompany Jesus outside of Judea. From our analysis in chapter two, we saw that Lazarus fits this description. However, we do not know if the Elder John fits this description or not.465 This fact justifies considering that

Lazarus was the BD, a hypothesis that neither Hengel nor Bauckham considers.466 So, let us now consider the theories that espouse that Lazarus was the BD.

THEORIES THAT IDENTIFY LAZARUS AS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

Although a number of scholars have purposed that Lazarus was the BD, 467 this theory remains on the fringes of scholarship. In recent years, however, Mark Stibbe and

Ben Witherington have endorsed it, and, one hopes, have provided it a measure of

465 Save for the possible tradition in Polycrates which reports that he was a priest. But, as we pointed out above, this tradition could be based on Jn 18:15-16. Furthermore, as we argued in chapter one, John’s high-priestly description was probably metaphorical, denoting that he was a Christian leader. 466 Hengel, Johannine Question, 78; Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 15n14. 467 For others who hold that Lazarus was the BD, see, B. Grey Griffith, “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.” The Expository Times 32 (1921): 376–81; Floyd Vivian Filson, “Who Was the Beloved Disciple?” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 83–88; W. H. Brownlee, “Whence the Gospel According to John?” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 166-194. Also Charlesworth, Beloved Disciple,186, surveys two German scholars from the early 20th century; I reproduce his bibliography here: J. Kreyenbühl, “Der Verfasser des Evangeliums,” Das Evangelium der Wahrheit: Neue Lösung der Johanneischen Frage (Berlin: C. A. Schwestschke und Sohn, 1900) 146-369; see esp. 151-152, 156-62; Kirkendraht, K. “Ist Lazarus der Lieblingsjünger im vierten Evangelium?” Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1914): 49-54.

137 legitimacy. Indeed, the arguments that were formulated from the internal evidence and that were set forward in support of Lazarus in chapter two oblige us to consider the theories that espouse Lazarus as the BD.

Sanders: Lazarus and John Mark

In 1954, J. N. Sanders suggested that the disciple ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Jn 13:23; 21:7,

20) was a different person than the disciple ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Jn 20:2, 18:15). He acknowledged that ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used as synonyms in the FG, but he proposed that they function to distinguish the two disciples. Sanders identified the ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ

Ἰησοῦς as Lazarus, and he suggested that ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς was the Elder John who is also John Mark. This John was the son of Mary who owned a house in Jerusalem (Ac

12:12), but not the John who published the Gospel of Mark. The Elder John edited the writings of Lazarus and published them as the FG in Ephesus, causing others to identify him with the BD, and eventually to identify both with the Apostle John.468

Stibbe: Lazarus and the Elder John

Stibbe follows the claim in the FG that the BD was an eyewitness and source of its tradition (Jn 21:24). However, Stibbe maintains that the BD was not the writer of the FG, as Jn 19:35 makes clear by separating the BD (3rd person) from the writer (1st person). In this verse, then, we see a distinction between the Evangelist and the BD.469

468 Sanders, The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, 73. See also Sanders, J.N. and B.A. Mastin. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. 469 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 76-77.

138

Stibbe argues that the BD was Lazarus and that the primary source behind the FG is

Lazarus’ eyewitness tradition470 which was handed down in a narrative as a primitive ur- gospel (21:24).471 In regards to the Evangelist, Stibbe identifies him as the Elder John

(Papias’ Elder and author of 2 John) and suggests that this John created the Gospel from his available sources (some in narrative form, others more primitive) by modifying and arranging them into their present form.472 So, Stibbe agrees with Sanders in that the BD was Lazarus and that the Evangelist was the Elder John, but he does not follow Sanders in identifying the Elder with John Mark.

Witherington: The Elder Lazarus and John of Patmos

In his 1995 commentary on John, Ben Witherington was enticed by the Lazarus hypothesis, but he did not adopt it because he thought that “it would be difficult then to explain how this Gospel ever came to be associated with anyone named John.”473

However, he has since changed his mind, and, in his 2006 monograph, What Have They

Done with Jesus, he expressed the Lazarus hypothesis in a robust form.

In Witherington’s theory, the BD is the Elder or “old man” of 2 and 3 John,474 and he is the same person who wrote the FG, but he is not the Apostle John or John of Patmos.475

Witherington thinks that the connections in Jn 11-13 between Lazarus and the BD equate

470 Stibbe argues that Lazarus was a historical person (Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 80-81); whereas Eric Titus purposes that Lazarus is not an historical figure, but is symbolic (Eric Lane Titus, “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 [1950]: 323n1). For Further discussion on this issue see Bauckham, Beloved Disciple, 173-189. 471 Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 80-81. 472 Ibid., 85-86. 473 Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 14. 474 Witherington, What Have They Done, 159-162. 475 Ibid., 142-146. In Witherington’s view, John of Patmos wrote the Revelation, but he did not write the FG or the epistles. Still, John of Patmos probably had some relationship with the community that produced the rest of the Johannine corpus, and he probably “operat[ed] at a time when there was no apostolic presence left in that community” (Ibid., 141-144).

139 the two figures: in Jn 12:2 Lazarus reclined at the table with Jesus which parallels Jn

13:23, and in Jn 11:3 Lazarus is called loved by Jesus which also parallels Jn 13:23.476

To further support his theory, Witherington recapitulates the typical arguments that support identifying Lazarus with the BD.477 But, he stresses a few points not mentioned in chapter two. For example, it makes sense to Witherington that Lazarus would include his own story in the narrative, and he points out that “[t]he Lazarus account is the longest continuous narrative in this entire gospel, which makes sense if it is a firsthand report from the author and his family about what happened.”478

Witherington suggests that the BD (Lazarus), followed by John of Patmos, may have fled Jerusalem with many other Christians in 66-67 C.E. because of an oracle predicting its destruction. In Ephesus, the BD became a central figure in the church because he was an eyewitness to events in Jesus’ life.479 John of Patmos may have compiled Lazarus’ memoirs into the FG when he returned from Patmos, thus explaining “why this gospel was labeled in the second century as written by an elderly John.”480

Evaluation

In evaluation of the hypothesis that Lazarus was the BD, we can maintain that it has more support from the internal evidence than the other two theories. To its detriment,

476 Ibid., 146. 477 Since these arguments were outlined in chapter two, there is no need to elaborate on them here. But, some of the ones Witherington emphasizes are: Lazarus had an intimate relationship with Jesus hence explaining the BD title, he was a Judean disciple of Jesus, and therefore explains the abundance of Judean events, and by living close to Jerusalem it explains how he knew the High-priest. Finally, Witherington thinks that the tradition that the BD would not die until Jesus returned is more likely to arise about one who had been raised by Jesus and lived to an old age (Ibid., 146-147). 478 Ibid., 148. 479 Ibid., 159. 480 Ibid., 152.

140 however, no early Christian writer attributes the FG to Lazarus. But, this difficulty is not insuperable, for the strength of the Lazarus hypothesis is that those who espouse it synthesize it with the Elder John hypothesis: identifying Lazarus with the BD explains the internal evidence, and identifying the Evangelist with the Elder John explains the external evidence. The primary difficulty that positing the Elder John as the Evangelist clarifies is explaining how the FG came to be attributed to a John: since this John created the FG by selecting, arranging, and editing Lazarus’ memoirs – which Lazarus wrote down, possibly into coherent narratives – his name was placed in the title, ‘according to

John.’ The writer’s name being placed in the title over the authority’s name has a parallel with the Gospel of Mark, Peter was the authority, but Mark was the writer. Moreover, if

Mark’s name was chosen over Peter’s (the lead apostle) to grace the title of his gospel because Mark was the writer, then surely it is no surprise that the Elder John’s name was chosen over Lazarus’.

141

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

In the introduction, the research question for this study was stated this way, “Who provided the primary source of material for the Fourth Gospel (FG)?” We called this primary source the author or authority of the FG and allowed for the possibility that this source wrote down some of his material. In light of this and Jn 21:24, we argued that our research question could also be stated this way, “Who was the Beloved Disciple?”

The method we have followed in investigating this question has been to analyze the internal and external evidence, and to endorse a theory of authorship that best explains both lines of evidence. In the first chapter, we considered the second-century literary evidence from the Sethian and Valentinian Gnostics and the proto-Orthodox. In the second chapter, we analyzed the passages in the FG wherein the BD appears, and we evaluated the arguments, which scholars have derived from the internal evidence, that support or oppose each of our candidates. In the final chapter, we considered the theories that claim that the Apostle John, the Elder John, or Lazarus of Bethany was the BD, and we used the research from chapters one and two to evaluate these theories. Here, we summarize how this research impacts the theories we considered.

There are aspects of the FG that support Johannine authorship. For instance, the

Apostle John and the BD both appear in Jn 21, and the BD appears at the Last Supper where the Apostle John is as well. Furthermore, Westcott’s process of elimination is a formidable argument. However, there are too many inconsistencies between the internal evidence and Johannine authorship. Foremost among these are: the temperament of the

BD and the Apostle John are incompatible, events that John witnessed (e.g., the

Transfiguration) are excluded, the FG focuses on Judea, the Evangelist make an

142 apologetic to establish the BD’s witness, and, if John is the BD, then Mk 10:35-40 and Jn

21:23 represent contradictory tradition about John’s death.

The external evidence between 180 and 200 C.E. represents the strongest evidence in support of Johannine authorship. The proto-Orthodox from this period produced a nearly unanimous testimony across the Roman Empire that a John authored the FG. However, the proto-Orthodox testimony between 100 and 180 C.E. is meager and shows that they were hesitant to use the FG. This hesitancy suggests that the proto-Orthodox from this period did not view the FG as authoritative, and, therefore, did not regard it as written by an apostle.

The Elder John hypothesis takes advantage of the deficiencies in the external and internal evidence that weaken Johannine authorship. By positing that the Elder John wrote the FG, one can harmonize the external evidence that seems to be contradictory within the Apostle John hypothesis. If the Elder John wrote the FG, then it explains why the proto-Orthodox were hesitant to use it between 100 and 180 C.E.; it was written by a non-apostle. Moreover, if the Elder John wrote the FG, it simultaneously explains how the name John came to be associated with it.

Furthermore, on the Elder John hypothesis, many of the arguments mounted against

Johannine authorship lose their weight. They lose their weight mostly because we do not know much about the Elder John. For example, we do not know if the Elder John was from Judea or Galilee, and we do not know his temperament. However, the weakness with equating the Elder John with the BD is that it does not clarify the events in the FG.

The only fact in the FG that it helps to explain is how the ‘other disciple’ of Jn 18:15 was known by the high-priest. But, this clarification is based on Polycrates of Ephesus’

143 testimony (c. 195 C.E.) that John of Ephesus wore the petalon, a testimony which itself could have been derived from Jn 18:15.

If one identifies Lazarus with the BD, it resolves the weakness in the Elder John theory regarding the internal evidence. If Lazarus is the BD, it clarifies a number of issues in the FG in light of his resurrection and friendship with Jesus. For example,

Lazarus’ resurrection best explains how the rumor began that the BD would not die (Jn

21:23). In addition to these clarifications, the Evangelist seems to identify Lazarus with the BD by ascribing similar attributes to them both: in Jn 12:2, Lazarus reclined at the table with Jesus which parallels Jn 13:23, and, in Jn 11:3, Lazarus is called loved by

Jesus which also parallels Jn 13:23.

So, in conclusion, the theory that best accounts for the internal and external evidence is the one that suggests that Lazarus was the BD and that the Elder John was the

Evangelist. One can explain the details this way. The Elder John was Lazarus’ disciple, and he selected, arranged, and edited Lazarus’ written memoirs (and possibly other sources) to create the FG. Because of the Elder’s role in composing the FG, the name

‘John’ was placed in the title ‘according to John.’ The Elder John was soon conflated with the BD because Christians connected the fact that they knew that he ‘wrote’ the FG with Jn 21:24 which equated the BD with the one ‘who wrote these things.’ The opportunity for this conflation arose because Christians soon forgot that although the

Elder John ‘wrote’ the FG, he used Lazarus’ writings as his material. Near the end of the second century, the proto-Orthodox began to conflate this Elder John from Ephesus, who by now they regarded as the BD, with the Apostle John because of influence to that effect from the Valentinian Gnostics.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Anderson, Paul. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: It’s Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6. Oregon: Cascade Books, 2010.

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Gospel of the Hellenists. Edited by Carl H. Kraeling. New York: Henery Holt, 1933.

Barnstone Willis, and Marvin Meyer, eds. The Gnostic Bible: Gnostic Texts of Mystical Wisdom from the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Boston, MA: New Seeds Books, 2006.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1955.

Bauckham, Richard. “The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (1993): 21–44.

———. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Beck, David R. “The Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization.” Semeia 63 (1993): 143-158.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11. NAC. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Bremmer, Jan N. “The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas. Edited by Jan Bremmer. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.

Bremmer, Jan N. and István Czachesz, eds. The Apocalypse of Peter. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Broome, Edwin Cornelius. “The Sources of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 63 (June 1944): 107-121.

145

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

______. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

______. The Gospels and Epistle of John: A Concise Commentary. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1988.

———. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis J. Moloney. New York: Doubleday, 2003.

Brownlee, W. H. “Whence the Gospel According to John?” In John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 166-194. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolph. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Edited by R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971.

Burney, C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.

Byrne, Brendan. “The Faith of the Beloved Disciple and the Community in John 20.” Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 23 (February 1985): 83-97.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charles, R.H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the revelation of St. John. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920.

Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.

Clement of Alexandria. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Collins, Raymond F. These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel. Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 2. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990.

______. “From John to the beloved Disciple: An Essay on Johannine Characters.” Interpretation 49 (1995): 359-369.

Colson, J. L’énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait. Théologie Historique 10. Paris: Beauchesne, 1969.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1976.

146

Culpepper, Alan R. The Gospel and Letters of John. IBT. Nashville, Abingdon Press: 1998.

______. The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

______. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

Davies, Margaret. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 69. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Delff H. K. H. Die Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth. Leipzig: W. Friedrich, 1889.

______. Das vierte Evangelium: Ein authentischer Bericht über Jesus von Nazareth. Husum: C. F. Delff, 1890.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Draper, H. M. “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.” Expository Times 32 (1921): 379-81.

Eller, Vernard. The Beloved Disciple: His Name, His Story, His Thought: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Elliot, J.K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Ellis, Peter F. “The Authenticity of John 21.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): 17-25.

Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (sects 47-50, De Fide). Translated by Frank Williams. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Vol. 34b. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Evans, Craig A., Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe eds. Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: a Synopsis and Index. New Testament Tools and Studies. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrmam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.

Evans, Ernest. The Verb Agapan in the Fourth Gospel, in Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. L. Cross, 64-71. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1957.

Franzmann, Majella, and Klinger. “The call stories of John 1 and John 21.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): 7-15.

147

Filson, Floyd Vivian. “Who Was the Beloved Disciple?” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 83–88.

France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Garvie, Alfred E. The Beloved Disciple: Studies of the Fourth Gospel. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922.

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “The Archive of Excess: John 21 and the Problem of Narrative Closure.” In Exploring the Gospel of John, edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black, 240-252. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Giversen, Soren. Apocryphon Johannis. Vol. 5 of Acta Theologica Danica. Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1963.

Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons. London: Routledge, 1997.

______. “Papias and the Gospels.” Anglican Theological Review 25 (April 1943): 218- 222.

Griffith, B. Grey. “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.” The Expository Times 32 (1921): 376–81.

Gutwenger, Engelbert “The anti-Marcionite Prologues.” Theological Studies 7 (1946): 393.

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. “More on Redating the Muratorian Fragment.” In Studia Patristica. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 359-365. Louvain: Peeters, 1989.

______. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Hawkin, David J. “The Function of the Beloved Disciple Motif in the Johannine Redaction” Laval Théologique Philosophique 33 (1977): 135-150.

Hendriksen, William. A Commentary on the gospel of John. 3rd ed. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989.

Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

148

______. “What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” The Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998): 582-629.

Hock, Ronald F. “Jesus, the Beloved Disciple, and Greco-Roman Friendship Conventions.” In Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture, Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, 195-212. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Hoskyns, Edwyn Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by Francis Noel Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1947.

Jones, David A. Old Testament Quotations and Allusion in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Edited by William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Josephus, Flavius, and Benedikt Niese. Flavii Iosephi Opera. Berlin: Apud Weidmannos, 1894.

Kurz, William S. “The beloved disciple and implied readers.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19, (July 1989): 100-107.

Jülicher, Adolf. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by J. P. Ward. London Smith, Elder & Co., 1904.

Keener, Craig. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003.

______. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Kennedy, George A. A New History of Clasiccal Rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

______. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Studies in Religion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Kennedy, H.A.A. “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel.” The Expository Times 29 (1917): 103-107.

______. “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel.” The Expository Times 29 (1918): 168-172.

______. “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel.” The Expository Times 29 (1918): 235-238.

______. “Irenaeus and the Fourth Gospel.” The Expository Times 29 (1918): 312-314.

Kirkendraht, K. “Ist Lazarus der Lieblingsjünger im vierten Evangelium?” Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1914): 49-54.

149

Kreyenbühl, J. “Der Verfasser des Evangeliums.” In Das Evangelium der Wahrheit: Neue Lösung der Johanneischen Frage, 146-369. Berlin: C. A. Schwestschke und Sohn, 1900.

Kruz, William S. “The Beloved Disciple and Implied Readers.” Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 19 (1989): 100–107.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975.

Laird, Andrew, ed. Ancient Literary Criticism: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Lalleman, P.J. The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. New York: Doubleday, 1987.

Lightfoot, J.B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

______. “Supernatural Religion: II. The Silence of Eusebius.” The Contemporary Review 25 (1874):169-188.

______. “Supernatural Religion: V. Papias of Hierapolis.” The Contemporary Review 26 (1875): 377-403.

______. “Supernatural Religion: VI. Papias of Hierapolis.” The Contemporary Review 26 (1875): 828-856.

Lightfoot, J.B. and J. R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers in English. London: Macmillan, 1891.

______. The Apostolic Fathers in Greek. London: Macmillan, 1891.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John’s Gospel. Edited by C. F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002): 3–26.

______. The Gospel according to Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: Continuum, 2005.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Macgregor, G. H. C. The Gospel of John. MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

150

Mack, Burton L., and Vernon K. Robbins. Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989.

Menken, Mararten J. J. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 15. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002.

Minear, Paul Sevier. “Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John: Some Clues and Conjectures.” Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 105–23.

______. “The Original Functions of John 21.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 85-98.

Mingana, A. “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: A New Document.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930): 333–39.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. NICNT. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

______. Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Müller, C. Detlef G. “The Apocalypse of Peter.” In New Testament Apocrypha. Vol 2. Rev. ed., Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Great Britain: James Clarke, 1991.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Odeberg, Hugo. “The Authorship of St John’s Gospel.” Concordia Theological Monthly 22 (1951): 225–50.

O’Grady, John F. “The Role of the Beloved Disciple.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 9 (April 1979): 58-65.

Osborn, Eric Francis. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Pagels, Elaine H. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 17. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Pamment, Margaret. “The Fourth Gospel’s Beloved Disciple.” The Expository Times 94 (1983): 363–67.

Parker, P. “John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 35-43.

151

Philipps, H. David. Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

Porter, Stanley E. ed. The Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. – A.D. 400. New York: Brill, 1997.

Quast, Kevin. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989.

Rigg, H. “Was Lazarus ‘the Beloved Disciple’?” The Expository Times February 33 (1922): 232–34.

Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.

Robinson, John A. T. The Priority of John. Edited by J. F. Coakley. Oak Park, IL: Meyer- Stone Books, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905.

Sanders, J. N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

______. “‘Those Whom Jesus Loved’ (John XI.5).” New Testament Studies 1 (1954): 29- 41

______. “Who Was the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved?” In Studies in the Fourth Gospel, edited by F. L. Cross, 72-82. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1957.

Sanders, J.N. and B.A. Mastin. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Schillito, E. “The Beloved Disicple.” The Expository Times 29 (1918): 473-474.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St John. 3 vols. New York: Seabury Press, 1979.

Scott, Ernest F. The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1908.

______. The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel. Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1909.

Smalley, Stephen S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

152

Smith, Dwight Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.

Strachan, R.H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. 1941. Reprint, London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stramara, Daniel F, Jr. “The Chiastic Key to the Identity of the Beloved Disciple.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 53 (2009): 5–27.

Stibbe, Mark W. G. John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. New York: Macmillan, 1925.

Sundberg, A.C., “Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon.” Studia Evangelica 4 (1968): 452-61.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Titus, Eric Lane. “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950): 323–28.

Tovey, Derek. Narrative Act and Art in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 151. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Turner, John D. “Sethian Gnosticism: a Literary History.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr., 55- 90. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel according to St John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: J. Murray, 1908.

Williams, Frank, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books I (Sects 1-46). Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. 2nd ed. Vol. 63. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Witherington, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

______. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009.

______. What Have They Done with Jesus? New York: Harper Collins, 2006.

153