Research Paper
Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple:
A Study into the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel



Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary / Mill Valley Campus
S2324-01 The Gospel of John (Online) Dr. Jay Y. Noh Spring 2003

by

Chris A. Foreman / Box 780 / April 23, 2003

Introduction

Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? The author does not identify himself anywhere in the twenty-one chapters of the text. This gospel is technically anonymous and its mysterious witness has been called "the beloved disciple". Up until the twentieth century, the traditional and accepted author has been the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee. During the twentieth century, authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been a matter of great debate among Biblical scholars. Leon Morris notes that most Continental scholars support a non-Johannine authorship, while many British and American scholars continue to support the Apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel (Morris, p 4). Craig L. Blomberg adds that scholars have proposed twenty-three individuals as possible authors for the Fourth Gospel (Blomberg, p 23). Some question whether authorship of the Fourth Gospel should be a matter of concern at all. Authorship issues tend to be dismissed by extremely liberal scholars who do not see "a historical Jesus" in any guise and by extremely conservative scholars for whom John's authorship is a forgone conclusion. Most scholarly writers fall between these extremes and wrestle with the authorship of this fourth and anonymous gospel.

While studying the issues of authorship, I have consistently found two categories of evidence presented. The first is external evidence - that is evidence found outside the Fourth Gospel. The second is internal evidence - that is evidence found inside the Fourth Gospel. To these two categories, I am adding a third category called "collaborating scriptural evidence". This grouping refers to evidence found in the twenty six books of the New Testament canon (excluding the Fourth Gospel). This category is intermediate to the external and internal evidence since it is "internal" to the canon yet "external" to the Fourth Gospel. I will focus on one piece of "collaborating scriptural evidence" that points to John as the probable author of the Fourth Gospel. I will first examine the relationship between Simon Peter and the beloved disciple as it is set forth in the Fourth Gospel. Next I will examine the relationship between Simon Peter and John Zebedee as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles. Finally, I will knit together the two narratives to determine if Peter's companion in both narratives could possibly be the same person. However, before this examination, the paper will review external evidence for the authorship of John and the internal evidence for the authorship of John.

Review of External Evidence

Every commentary that I have read points out that external evidence solidly favors John, son of Zebedee, as author of the Fourth Gospel. Like most scholars, G.R. Beasley-Murray, lists the universal testimony of church fathers as to the authorship of John (Beasley-Murray p. lxvi). He lists Irenaeus, Polycrates, Clement of Alexander, and the Muratorian Canon as all testifying that the Apostle John authored the Fourth Gospel. Alternative authors do not appear until the writings of Eusebius in the fifth century, and then the testimony is ambiguous. Blomberg notes that scholars who support a Johannine authorship typically start with external evidence, then the uncertainties of internal evidence do not provide enough uncertainty to sway opinion away from John. Conversely, scholars who begin with internal evidence become doubtful that the author is John. The uniform witness of external evidence does not remove the doubt. (Blomberg, p 23).

Review of Internal Evidence

Determining the authorship of the Fourth Gospel based solely upon the gospel's narrative is problematic. We must admit that if the author is indeed John, then he is intentionally shy about identifying himself. R. Alan Culpepper, in Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, calls the narrator of the Fourth Gospel "the whispering wizard" because of his alluring yet cryptic style (Culpepper, p 15). An honest reading of the text reveals three points of input in the production of the Fourth Gospel: (1) the witness, (2) the author, (3) the redactor. These will be looked at in turn.

The first input comes from the witness or the narrator of the story. If the narrator is correctly identified, then the author and redactor are less troublesome. The narrator identifies himself as the "beloved disciple" in several places. Sometimes this narrator appears as a participant in the story (at the last supper), at other times he appears to have an omniscient perspective upon events (the prologue). Herman Ridderbos makes the point that before authorship can be considered, one must first determine the relationship between the gospel's internal witness (the beloved disciple) and the gospel's author (the same beloved disciple or a different person). There are several points in favor of John being the beloved disciple based on internal evidence. The best procedure that points to John was developed by B.F. Westcott about a century ago (Blomberg, p 27). Using a process of elimination, Westcott supports the view that the narrator (beloved disciple) was first a Jew. With that conceded, one can narrow down the possibilities to demonstrate that the narrator was a Jew of Palestine. The next step demonstrates that he was an eyewitness of the events being narrated. Next, that he must have been one of the twelve disciples, and finally that he could only have been John. This logic seems compelling to me, but not to others. Some Continental scholars propose that the "beloved disciple" is a literary device, and not an actual person at all. Some suggest that James Zebedee is the beloved disciple, because John would be too humble to use a title like "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as a self-reference.

In his book The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved: Unveiling the Author of John's Gospel, Edward Smith proposes Lazarus as the most likely disciple to be called "beloved". He uses two arguments. First, the term "disciple" is used loosely by the author and is not limited to the twelve. Second, Lazarus is only person in the entire gospel referenced as one whom Jesus loved (11:5 and 11:36). Another leading candidate for beloved disciple is the Apostle Thomas. This proposal argues that since Thomas wanted to see with own eyes the wounds of Jesus caused by nail and spear, then he himself was the "beloved disciple" who stood by the cross and saw the wounds administered with nail and spear. Mary Magdalene is a favorite of feminists as the beloved disciple. If John is indeed the beloved disciple, he did not make that fact obvious through the narrative. He veiled his identity in mystery as much as he veiled his gospel is mystery.

The second input into the gospel comes from the author or writer of this gospel. Is this person the same as the "beloved disciple"? Maybe or maybe not. There is textual evidence that the "beloved disciple" mentioned five times in the gospel and the evangelist-writer are the same person (21:24), but certain scholars dispute this conclusion. Some scholars conclude that John is indeed the beloved disciple, but that a Johannine school actually authored the gospel. This is a possibility, but the Westcott argument is compelling to me. It does appear that the author was an eyewitness to the events, rather than some committee after the fact. If the beloved disciple is the Apostle John then it makes sense to me that the author was also John.

The third input comes from the redactor or editor of the gospel. Redaction is clearly visible in the final verses of the gospel where the voice of the witness changes to "we". Perhaps this verse is the only redaction, but that seems unlikely. Beasley-Murray suggests that all of chapter twenty-one was written by editors long after the author's death. Several authors suggest that entire chapters in the gospel were re-ordered by later redactors. My own feeling is that the redactors were responsible for the problem of the "beloved disciple". A few of the commentaries remark that it may have been redactors of the Johannine Circle (the "we" of 21:24) who removed John's personal pronouns from his original autograph and out of respect for their master substituted the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved". This conjecture would explain away two of the big obstacles in accepting the authorship of John. (1) Why didn't the author tell us who he was? and (2) How could a humble person like John identify himself as uniquely "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

A review of the intermediate evidence: "collaborating scriptural evidence"

None of the commentaries appear tidy about his category. Evidence of this kind is not typically included in "external evidence", but rather is it mixed in with "internal evidence". Where do we read about John Zebedee as he is reported in the synoptic gospels, or in reference to him authoring the general epistles, or in reference to the book of Revelation? Usually a discussion this collaborating scriptural evidence is brief and is mentioned after conjecture about the beloved disciple. Ridderbos is the only author I read that mentions the relationship between John and Peter in the Acts of the Apostles as supporting the claim that John is indeed the beloved disciple. However, he does this in only one sentence: "Favoring this identification, of course, is the special place that this disciple has in the other Gospels, in particular his being frequently in the company of Peter (e.g. Lk 22:8 where John and Peter were appointed to prepare the last supper: see also Ac 3:1, 4:13&19, 8:14, Gl 2:9) (Ridderbos, p 675)" In a collection of essays entitled Exploring the Gospel of John, C.K. Barnett addresses the parallels between the gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles. In the sixteen pages of essay entitled "Parallels Between Acts and John" there is no reference to the partnership between Apostles Peter and John. This relationship will be the focus of the next several pages.


A review of the seven appearances of anonymous disciple in the Fourth Gospel

Having quickly reviewed internal evidence and external evidence, I will now focus on the thesis of this paper: that the beloved disciple in the Fourth Gospel and the Apostle John in the book of Acts are in fact the same person. For the sake of completeness, pertinent passages will be quoted in their entirety (using the KJV). In the Fourth Gospel the narrator variously describes himself as "the other disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and perhaps "the son of Zebedee". The first possible mention of narrator occurs in chapter one. He is introduced as the "other disciple". Obviously he cannot yet be referred to as "the beloved disciple", because he has yet to meet Jesus. In this initial appearance, the narrative suggests that the other disciple meets Jesus one evening, spends the night with Jesus where he was dwelling, then meets Simon Peter the very next day. Note the physical and narrative proximity of the anonymous disciple and Simon Peter.

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. … 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

The joining of Peter to the band of Jesus followers occurred certainly toward the beginning of his ministry. By John, Chapter 13, the earthly ministry of Jesus is within days of completion. It must have been about three years of story later when the anonymous disciple is re-introduced. In this encounter with Jesus, the narrator describes himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". He is pictured as leaning on Jesus' bosom. Note once more the physical and narrative proximity of the anonymous disciple and Simon Peter.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. 25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

Several hours after this exchange in the upper room, the narrator shows himself again in chapter 18. Again he is acting in the immediate company of Simon Peter. In this case the disciple is not called "beloved" but just "another". Is this because like all the other disciples he had just abandoned Jesus in the garden? There is a clue here as to the identity of the other disciple: "He was known unto the high priest". Does this fact preclude the Apostle John as being the mysterious disciple? Some scholars contend it does. Many scholars ask how could a lowly fisherman be known to such an august personage? Others propose that John came from a prosperous fisherman's family. Note that Zebedee employed hired hands in Mark 1:9. Perhaps the family of Zebedee provided fresh fish for the temple priests. We do not know. The fact that the anonymous disciple was known to high priest may weight against John as being the anonymous disciple, but it hardy disqualifies him.

15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

The next time we meet the anonymous disciple he is at the foot of the cross. The narrative of chapter nineteen tells us that three woman and the beloved disciple stood by Jesus as He was crucified. The beloved disciple accepts Mary, the mother of Jesus, as his own mother. This is the only instance in seven appearances when Simon Peter is not in the company of the anonymous disciple. We can only speculate why the two were separated. These events occurred only nine hours after Peter had denied his Lord. We understand through the synoptic gospels that Peter went off to weep bitterly. For whatever reason, this is the single case when Peter was not accompanying the anonymous disciple.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Only thirty six-hours later, as chapter 20 opens, we see the narrator and Simon Peter together again. They appear to be a team in isolation. If other disciples had been with them, surely all would have responded to the shouting of Mary Magdalene and all would have run to the sepulchre. Peter and the beloved disciple also seem to be the leaders, because Mary runs directly to these two. It certainly appears that by this time in the gospel the narrator and Simon Peter were closest companions. There is some hint here that the narrator was the younger of the two. He certainly ran faster by a long margin.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Some time after the resurrection of Jesus (but still before Pentecost), the narrative tells of an encounter between the risen Lord and seven of this disciples. This must have been a few weeks later, because the seven traveled all the way back to Galilee, re-possessed their boats, and resumed fishing. Verse two of chapter twenty-one tells us: "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples". This description leads away from John being the anonymous disciple, since "two other disciples" cannot refer to John because John is a son of Zebedee. Raymond E. Brown speculates that these two unnamed disciples are Philip and Andrew. He also suggests that "two sons of Zebedee" may be an early gloss, inserted to identify of the unnamed disciples (Brown, p 1068). Verse two provides good ammunition for those who contend that John and the anonymous disciple are not the same person. Although this verse leans away from the Apostle John as the narrator, it does not rule him out. Note that John and Simon Peter are together among the seven, no matter how the disciples are parsed. It is possible that the narrator wanted to purposefully count "James the son of Zebedee" among the seven and yet still remain anonymous. It is reasonable therefore that the unnamed "sons of Zebedee" was the most elegant way to accomplish this. Also note that two miscellaneous were identified as "other" and neither was termed "beloved". It seems plausible that not every use of "other disciple(s)" is a cloaked reference to the disciple of mystery. Sometimes the words might simply mean "other disciples". After all, not every mention of "Lord" refers to Jesus Christ. When Jesus appears on the sea shore, it is the narrator that appears to be sitting in a boat right next to Simon Peter. Although it is the visionary that first recognizes Jesus, it is the man of action that jumps into the water.

John 21:7-8 7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. 8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

In this final mention of the beloved disciple, it is Peter who runs ahead and the other who is following. Again note their narrative and physical proximity. There is a hint that the anonymous disciple (whoever he may be) lived to a very old age. This is the likely purpose of verse 23.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? John 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

In the very next verse, the narrator self-identifies himself as the author and evangelist of the gospel by proclaiming "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things (verse 24)". Unless we intentionally discount this verse, it is evident that the witness of the gospel events - that is the anonymous/beloved disciple - and the evangelist/author are one and the same person.


A review of the four pertinent passages in Acts and one in Galatians

As the book of Acts begins, we meet the disciples before the day of Pentecost. This means that less than fifty days have passed since the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps only a few weeks have passed since the encounter between Jesus, Simon Peter and the beloved disciple by the Sea of Tiberius. After the ascension of Jesus (1:9) and before Pentecost (2:1) Simon Peter and John are together along with the other nine surviving apostles.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

After the events of Pentecost, we encounter a powerful team of apostles. Did not Jesus send out his disciples two by two? We might have expected that two brothers team up. Why not a team of James and John, the sons of Zebedee? Why not a team of Andrew and Peter, the sons of Jonah? This did not happen. As the narrator recounts the Acts of the Apostles, he consistently places the Apostle John in the company of the Apostle Peter. Note that this does not happen in reverse. After chapter eight of Acts, Peter does act independently of John. However, John never acts independently of Simon Peter. In the eleven verses below the names "Peter and John" are paired four times.

Acts 3:1-11 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. 2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; 3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. 4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. 5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. 6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God: 10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him. 11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

The next time we encounter John in the Acts of the Apostles he is again in the company of Simon Peter. The two of them appear to be a team, witnessing together on the street, witnessing together before Jewish leaders, and spending time in jail together.

Acts 4:13:20 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. 14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

In the eighth chapter of Acts, John makes a final appearance. Again the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is serving God in the company of Simon Peter. In the Acts of the Apostles, it is a fact that every mention of the Apostle John also mentions the Apostle Peter.

Acts 8:14-15 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

The Apostle John makes one more narrative appearance in the New Testament. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul recounts a visit to Jerusalem. At a council of Christian leaders, Paul names the three "pillars of the church". They are the Apostle Peter (Cephas) and the Apostle John, joined by James the brother of Jesus. Once again, wherever we encounter John we also encounter Simon Peter.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The Apostle John does appear again in the New Testament. Although anonymous, many scholars accept the First Epistle of John to have come from the same hand as the Fourth Gospel. The Second and Third Epistles of John are of more questionable authorship. In the Book of Revelation, John identifies himself as author five times. There is no mention of Simon Peter in Revelation of course. John tells us that he was exiled to the island of Patmos in communicato.

Conclusion

There are seven references in the Fourth Gospel to the anonymous/beloved/other disciple. In six of these seven references the anonymous disciple is coupled with Simon Peter. In the seventh appearance, the beloved disciple appears alone with three women. In the Acts of the Apostles there are four references to the Apostle John. At first mention, Peter and John are listed as members of the eleven disciples. In the three subsequent occurrences, John is coupled with Simon Peter. They appear to minister as a "twosome". The Apostle John appears one further time in narrative. In the book of Galatians, John is again coupled with Peter; this time as part of a trio with James the brother of Jesus. What can we conclude from these scriptural observations? We can conclude probably what the earliest readers of the Fourth Gospel concluded. I believe that our vision becomes clearer when we look backward from the prospective of 100 AD, rather than look forward from the start of Christ's ministry. This is what the first readers of the Fourth Gospel would see.

Does Thomas fit this scheme? Could Lazarus have been the beloved disciple? How can the beloved disciple and John Zebedee NOT be the same person? Is it conceivable (or psychologically possible) that Simon Peter would have had one "best buddy" before Pentecost (6 couplings), then switched to a different "best buddy" after Pentecost (5 couplings). I suggest that honest scholars must reach the same conclusion that the first readers of the Fourth Gospel reached. They rightly affixed "KATA IOANNHN" (according to John), the name of the beloved disciple, to this beloved gospel.

Bibliography:

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Biblical Commentary. 2d. ed. Waco, TX: Word, 1999.

Blomberg, C. L. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel. Issues & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001.

Borchert, G. L. John. Vol 2. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1970.

Culpepper, R. Alan, and C. Clifton Black. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth gospel: A study in Literary Design. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.

Morris, L. The Gospel According to John. (NICNT) Revised Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Ridderbos, H. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Smith, Edward Reaugh. The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved: Unveiling the Author of John's Gospel. Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2000.