Man Jesus Loved. Theodore W. Jr. Jennings

going to do, do quickly” (13:27). Thus, if we take the text as it stands, we would conclude that the beloved was also mystified by what Jesus had said to him and only later recalled the incident when he, with others, knew that Judas had been the betrayer.

      7. Reasons for doubting that the “other disciple” of 18:15–16 should be included among the texts that contribute to our knowledge of the beloved are given below, pp. 47-53.

      8. See chapter 10.

      9. See Mark 3:32–35 and parallels and Luke 11:27–28.

      10. The other Gospels know this also. See Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, where we also learn that he had sisters as well.

      11. This reading from Irenaeus was already established by the end of the second century.

      12. Indeed the role of Mary here has even led to the suggestion that she had an especially close relationship to Jesus of the sort that this narrative in fact reserves for a man. This suggestion must be wholly based upon the account of Jesus’ appearance to her in the garden, because at no other point is she represented, by name, as having an especially close relationship to Jesus. A displacement seems to be taking place from the beloved to Mary Magdalene, as if the reader recognizes that something more than ordinarily intimate seems to be signaled by the text and so constructs, from another figure in the text, a more acceptable recipient of this intimacy.

      13. The Gospel of John is alone in identifying Peter as the one in the garden who has a sword with which he seeks to defend Jesus from the Temple police (18:10).

      14. We should notice that the assertion that the lack of understanding concerning the resurrection attributed both to the disciple and to Peter makes it difficult to suppose that the beloved is to be identified with Lazarus, who had already been raised from the dead.

      15. The question of the role of the beloved disciple is addressed again in the next chapter.

      16. The chapter is also regularly regarded as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, which seems to end naturally at the end of chapter 20.

      17. A similar story appears in Luke 5:4–11.

      18. At 2:12, the text clearly distinguished the brothers from the disciples, and this may also be the meaning of 7:3–10. If so, then “brothers” here does not mean disciples but specifically the siblings of Jesus who will misunderstand his words. How they come to concern themselves with the fate of the beloved is understandable, given that the beloved has become something of a sibling through the mutual adoption of Jesus’ mother and his beloved at the cross.

      The confusion on the part of the “brothers” concerning the meaning of Jesus’ saying about the man he loved is a strong indication of the historicity of this figure. See chapter 4.

       Chapter 3

       The Identity and Role of the Man Jesus Loved

      While little attention has been given to the question of the kind of relationship that Jesus had with the disciple he loved, considerable attention has focused on the question of this figure’s identity and to his role in the Gospel of John. Accordingly we now turn to this set of issues.

       Role of the Beloved

      What is the role in the narrative of the one called the beloved of Jesus? Why should one be singled out as Jesus’ loved one in this way? Some of the proposed answers to this question have served to deflect attention away from the erotic character of the relationship that we explored in the previous chapter. Accordingly we need to pay these answers particular attention if we are to substantiate the homoerotic reading of the relationship that we have proposed.

       The Claim of Authority

      The beloved is shown as the witness to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and is said to be the one whose testimony undergirds in some way the narrative we call the Gospel of John (19:35; 21:24). Is the point of singling out this disciple to claim a certain authority for him and his teaching?

      Although this suggestion has regularly been tacitly assumed, it does not bear up well under scrutiny. At no point is the beloved said to be privy to information not available to the others. He is one of at least four witnesses to the death of Jesus. He and Peter both go to the empty tomb. Unlike Mary of Magdala, they do not encounter Jesus. Indeed the presence of the beloved disciple at a resurrection appearance is found only in the last chapter where he is in the company of others, most of whom have presumably seen the risen Jesus at one or both of the two previous group encounters.

What at first appears to be a significant role, that of eyewitness to the most important events, turns out to be less than crucial.¹ Insofar as special information is involved, it seems to be trivial. The beloved disciple knows a few minutes before the others the identity of Jesus’ betrayer. This sort of detail is theologically insignificant.² Nothing beyond personal significance is here, nothing that would establish the reputation of a school, nothing that would make the beloved an authoritative teacher.

      To be sure, the Gospel of John is filled—certainly more so than the other Gospels—with what appears to be esoteric teaching concerning the identity of Jesus and the conflict between the gospel and the world. None of this esoteric teaching is ever associated with the beloved disciple. Jesus explains far more to Nicodemus (3:1–21) or the Samaritan woman (4:1–42) than to him. Even in the last discourse, where so much of theological significance is said, the beloved plays no role whatever. Peter, Judas not Iscariot, Philip, and Thomas all figure in this discussion, but no mention is made of the beloved.

      Had the aim been to establish the authority of a particular teacher, a better job could have been done. The beloved might at least have been unambiguously identified, for example, or made privy in some way to Jesus’ teachings. At least his presence alongside the others might have been mentioned when a decisive theological issue was discussed.

The supposition that the character of the beloved disciple is introduced in order to make a claim for the authority of some or other teaching or school of Christian thought does not stand up to scrutiny.³ At no point does the beloved play any such role. Indeed the text itself precludes anyone from such a role since all of Jesus’ teaching, however esoteric it may seem, is nevertheless public. Furthermore, more revelations will come to all the followers from the Spirit (16:13).

      The most that can be made of the authority of the beloved is that he, like others, was one of Jesus’ followers. He does not have authority because he was the beloved (for no special knowledge is