The Beloved Disciple

I've recently had some very stimulating conversations with my friend A. One topic that recurs for us is text-criticism of the Old and New Testaments. The latest installment of our discussions included the question "Who wrote the Gospel of John". A told me that Ben Witherington III has argued that the author of the Gospel of John, and hence "the beloved disciple", was in fact Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead. I have just read Witherington's blog entry about this from January 29, 2007, along with all the comments. I've also been doing some digging around of my own into the Early Church witness relating to John. This entry is meant to organize my thoughts about the topic.

First, the Early Church witness. I have always thought that the John whom Polycarp knew was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. I'm less certain about this now. It appears to be a distinct possibility that there were two Johns - the apostle John, and the presbyter John. Eusebius specifically highlights this in his History of the Church when discussing Papias (Book III, Chap. XXXIX). According to Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book V, Chap. XXXIII, Sect. 4), Papias was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp". Papias had written 5 books called "Expositions of Oracles of the Lord", apparently a collection of oral traditions from eyewitnesses to the Gospel events or the disciples of the eyewitnesses. This books are no longer extant, but Eusebius apparently was familiar with them, as he quotes from them in several places. Notably, when Irenaeus says that Papias was "a hearer of John", Eusebius understands him to mean the apostle John. But Eusebius quotes Papias himself: "If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders [apparently he means the apostles or other eye-witnesses], 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 [the apostle] 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." Eusebius deduces that Papias was a hearer of the presbyter John himself, on the basis that he mentions him frequently by name and cites them in his books. One possibility, then, is that Irenaeus was mistaken when he called Papias a hearer of the apostle John. Another possibility is that Eusebius misunderstands Irenaeus, and that Irenaeus is himself referring to the presbyter John rather than to the Apostle. Eusebius also quotes a letter from Polycrates (Bishop of Ephesus during the Paschal controversy) in which both Polycarp and someone names John are named (Church History V.XXIV): "For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming [...] Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles [...]; 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. And Polycarp in Smyrna [...]." This quote could be taken in two ways. The John mentioned could be the apostle. The statement that he "reclined upon the bosom of the Lord" would then line up nicely with the Gospel accounts that the beloved disciple sat next to Jesus at the Last Supper - if the beloved disciple is the apostle John. Alternatively, it could be the presbyter John who, as an eye-witness but not one of the twelve, could have been present at the Last Supper. This would explain why Philip is specifically called "one of the twelve apostles" whereas John is simply called "a witness and a teacher". The upshot to this idea is that it forces at least one other disciple, not one of the twelve, to be present at the Last Supper, and his name was also John, and moreover the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel would then be the presbyter, not the apostle. There is a third possibility - that the John mentioned by Irenaeus and also by Polycrates is in fact the apostle, and Papias, though referring to two different Johns, was a hearer of the apostle (as well as of the presbyter) toward the end of the apostle's life and therefore could learn only so much from the apostle himself, and must afterward have learned what he could from those who had known him better. In this case, Eusebius misunderstands Papias' statement. Something like this is made more likely by Irenaeus' comments about Polycarp (Against Heresies III.III.4):

But Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time [only a generation later] [...] He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, - that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." [The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.] Such was the horror which the apostles [John] and their disciples [Polycarp] had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth [...] Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Here Irenaeus clearly states that Polycarp knew at least one of the apostles. He is also said to have "conversed with many who had seen Christ" but were presumably not apostles. This mention of non-apostolic eye-witnesses is the only such in this chapter, which otherwise relies heavily on the authority of the apostles themselves. John is mentioned twice, and associated with the apostles both times. In the first case, Irenaeus draws a parallel between John and Polycarp (John takes an extreme position toward Cerinthus, and Polycarp his disciple takes a correspondingly extreme position toward Marcion), and then uses these two instances to claim that both the apostles (illustrated by the story of John) and their disciples (illustrated by the story of Polycarp) were horrified by heresies. He thus makes John one of the apostles, and not simply one of the eye-witnesses. In the second case, Irenaeus recognizes the Paul as the founder of the church in Ephesus, but makes John the long-time shepherd of that church. He does this in order to claim that "the Church in Ephesus [...] is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." Again, he makes John an apostle, along with Paul. Ireneaus, then, appears truly to believe that Polycarp was a hearer of the apostle John, whom he however calls "the disciple of the Lord". Finally, the fact that Irenaeus makes Papias the companion of Polycarp seems to imply that Polycarp was older than Papias, and this would be consistent with the notion that Papias knew the apostle only at the end of his life, whereas Polycarp was apparently better acquainted with him and for a longer time.

Eusebius quotes Papias once more (in the same place): "This also the presbyter [not the apostle] said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. [...] So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." Eusebius then adds that "the same writer [Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise." Eusebius also states (regarding Mark) that Mark was asked to write his Gospel by the hearers of Peter, who "was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement [...] gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias" (Church History II.XV). My point in bringing up this last quote is that Eusebius is clearly acknowledging apostolic sanction of Mark's Gospel (as he does later of Luke's by tying him to Paul and reporting that "they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the owrds, 'according to my Gospel'."), and he cites Papias as a supporter of this sanction. It seems likely, then, that in the first quote (about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and the Epistles of John and Peter) Eusebius' use of the word "likewise" implies that Papias claims apostolic authority for the two Epistles, as Eusebius understands it. But Eusebius (and by extension Papias as well) apparently considers these Epistles to be not only sanctioned, but also written by apostles themselves. If Papias had thought that the Epistle of John, for instance, were not written by the apostle but only sanctioned by him, we would presumably have indicated this in his book and Eusebius would have grouped it with his account of Mark. In any event there does not appear to be any other opinion in the Early Church than that the apostle himself wrote the Epistle.

Irenaeus claims that "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" (Against Heresies III.I.I). And again, we have seen that Papias appears to claim that the Epistle is by the apostle, or perhaps the presbyter under the sanction of one of the apostles. In either case, if the Gospel and the Epistle are by the same author, then the author must be either the apostle John or the presbyter John. If the former, then the beloved disciple was the apostle, and the title "the disciple of the Lord" may be in reference to this; otherwise the beloved disciple was the presbyter. In either event, it seems likely that the question was clear to Papias and Irenaeus. If the apostle is the beloved disciple, then Polycarp was his disciple, and Papias might have met him before his death. Papias would have learned either directly from the apostle or from Polycarp what the origin of the fourth Gospel was, and Irenaeus would have known it from Polycarp or Papias. Similarly if the beloved disciple was the presbyter, Papias and Irenaeus would have known it. That they both attribute the Gospel/Epistle to a man named John is strong evidence that the author's name was actually John.

Eusebius clearly believes that "the disciple of the Lord" is the apostle (see Church History III.XXIII). He speaks of the apostle but cites Irenaeus' phrase "the disciple of the Lord". But Irenaeus himself appears to equate the two (Against Heresies II.XXIII.5): "[..] even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. [...] Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also. [...] Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles [...]?" The context of this statement is much doubted since Irenaeus claims that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, rather than 30. Be that as it may, he clearly groups John "the disciple of the Lord" with "the other apostles also", as an apostle among them. In the same place he refers to "the Gospel". Is he referring specifically to John's Gospel? If so, then he explicitly links the fourth Gospel to the apostle John.

So from very early times John is referred to as an apostle, as "the disciple of Jesus", and also as the one "who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord" (Polycrates), apparently in reference to the Last Supper.

But maybe this is all a mix-up. This is essentially the first part of Witherington's thesis. Specifically, he supposes that the beloved disciple who wrote both the Gospel and the Epistle was Lazarus. Why are they called after John's name? He supposes that John of Patmos (the author of Revelation - whether he is supposed to be the presbyter or a third John, I don't know) was the collector/editor of Lazarus' work, and Papias among others began referring to them by the collector's/editor's name. For internal evidence of Lazarus' authorship of the Gospel, his strongest point is that Lazarus is specifically called one whom Jesus loves (John 11:3), and all references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" occur after this. From here, he pieces together a plausible story. Ultimately, though, I'm not convinced. Here are a few reasons:

First, it seems unusual that a collection of writings by Lazarus would become known by the collector's name. This is opposite to the Documentary Hypothesis' claim, for instance, that the books of Moses are named for Moses but collected and edited by later scribes. If the earliest Christians knew that Lazarus wrote the Gospel and Epistle (or at least the core of them), why would they not have attributed them to him? It stretches the imagination too much to think that John could have been merely a collector (of only two to five documents!) or slight editor (adding only the appendix to the Gospel?).

Second, Witherington's complaints about the lack of Galilean presence or episodes specifically about the apostle John are not convincing, and they have been dealt with consistently since as early as Eusebius. The basic points are that John focused his Gospel specifically around the gathering crisis in Jerusalem, and that he didn't need to tell about the Galilean ministry or the episodes involving himself, since the Synoptic Gospels had already covered that ground. To Witherington's rejoinder that "the way eyewitness testimony worked in early Judaism is that you testified to the important things you saw, especially the one's [sic.] that changed your life", we might ask why did the Synoptic writers omitt the stories that are unique to John, such as the story of Lazarus himself? Or again, it is clear from the final sections of the Gospel that the author could have told us about more events, but did not (John 20:30, 21:25). Along these lines, Witherington himself says the author "had to be constantly condensing his material, as is so often the case with an eyewitness account that is rich in detail and substance." So why can't this same principle apply to the question why episodes reported elsewhere are not reported in the fourth Gospel?

Third, and finally, internal evidence suggests to me that the beloved disciple is the apostle John. Witherington claims that chapters 14-17 contain "discourses given at several junctures during that last week." I don't know what evidence he would marshal in support of this claim, but on the surface I don't think this is plausible. For one thing, chapters 14-16 are one continuous quote. If this was an combination of discourses I would expect now and then to see an occasional "eipen de" or some other authorial interjection. For another thing, the end of chapter 13 has Jesus telling Peter "the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times." Chapters 14-16 are a continuation of this statement, which if they occurred over several days, would require that the rooster crowed several times before the early morning of Peter's denial. I can imagine chapter 13 being a combination of two events - the first supper in which Jesus washed the disciples' feet, and the second (beginning with the authorial interjection "After saying these things ...."), or Last Supper, during which Judas is revealed as the betrayer. In this case, 13:21 is the beginning of the Johannean Last Supper, and the beloved disciple is sitting close to Jesus and asked Jesus who the betrayer was. Jesus demonstrates who the betrayer is by giving Judas bread. In Luke's Gospel, Peter and John (the apostle) are sent ahead to prepare the Last Supper meal (in Mark the two disciples are not named, and in Matthew the number of disciples preparing the meal is not given at all). When it was evening, Jesus "came with the twelve" (Mark), He "reclined at table with the twelve" (Matthew), and He "reclined at table, and the apostles with him" (Luke). Mark and Luke do not record a disciple asking Jesus who will betray Him, and Matthew simply says that they all were asking if they were the betrayer. The fourth Gospel singles out the beloved disciple. But how many disciples were present? All internal indications are that the twelve were the only ones present with Jesus. In each Gospel except the fourth, it is stated that Jesus supped with the twelve, and immediately he says "one of you will betray me".

*******

Well, unfortunately I need to wrap this up now before I am *really* finished. Perhaps I'll write more later. In the meantime: I find the internal evidence as well as the external evidence in favor of the apostle John as the author of the Gospel and the Epistle that bear his name.