What do you think?
Rate this book
The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?
The Gospel of John refers five times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved." From the second through the present century, scholars have sought to identify this "disciple," traditionally concluding that he is the author of the Gospel and is indeed none other than John the son of Zebedee.
In recent phases of research, however, the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee has been exposed as weak and unpersuasive. Yet, according to James Charlesworth, even this new research is problematic in that it tends to ascribe priority in discerning the meaning of the Gospel of John to documents other than the Gospel itself. Moreover, this research tends to impute historical accuracy to documents that were not primarily intended to present histories.
Based on extensive research, then, Professor Charlesworth has concluded that the primary texts in the Gospel of John and the reflections of modern scholars indicate that any identification of the Beloved Disciple - whether with one of the disciples specified in the Gospel, with one who is anonymous in this Gospel, or with some symbolic theme - must provide credible answers to eight questions.
In recent phases of research, however, the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee has been exposed as weak and unpersuasive. Yet, according to James Charlesworth, even this new research is problematic in that it tends to ascribe priority in discerning the meaning of the Gospel of John to documents other than the Gospel itself. Moreover, this research tends to impute historical accuracy to documents that were not primarily intended to present histories.
Based on extensive research, then, Professor Charlesworth has concluded that the primary texts in the Gospel of John and the reflections of modern scholars indicate that any identification of the Beloved Disciple - whether with one of the disciples specified in the Gospel, with one who is anonymous in this Gospel, or with some symbolic theme - must provide credible answers to eight questions.
- GenresBiblical Studies
481 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1995
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 1, 2024
WHO IS THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE”? IS IT THOMAS? LAZARUS? OR SOMEONE ELSE?
James H. Charlesworth (born 1940) is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1995 book, “In the Gospel of John… the author refers five times to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ From the second through the present twentieth century scholars have sought to identify this ‘disciple,’ traditionally concluding that he is … none other than John the son of Zebedee. This is rather a remarkable accomplishment since ‘John’ is neither mentioned nor named in the [Gospel]… and is perhaps obliquely included in the Appendix, but only in an ambiguous [‘sons of Zebedee’].” (Pg. x) He adds, “After some extended research… I became convinced that anonymity moves to an epithet and finally to a revelation of the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The model disciple is not really anonymous; he is an enigma that is gradually disclosed.” (Pg. xiv-xv)
Having previously noted that “more and more scholars are defending the viability of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple” (Pg. xiii), he then presents a very helpful summary of persons presenting this thesis on pages 185-192, before concluding, “In chapter 5 below, I discuss the major reasons why Lazarus cannot be the Beloved Disciple. Briefly, I argue that the epithet does refer to a real person, but Lazarus may be a narrative fiction. The Beloved Disciple is the model disciple of Jesus, yet Lazarus is never called a disciple, and he does and says nothing.” (Pg. 192)
He argues, “the most likely candidate for the Beloved Disciple is Thomas… Thomas must have knowledge possessed only by the Beloved Disciple; according to the narrator only the Beloved Disciple sees the thrust of the lance (19:32-35). Yet Thomas, whom the narrator otherwise does not indicate could have known about Jesus’ thoratic wound, demands to see and put his hand into it (20:25).” (Pg. 225) He adds, “the reader is prompted to ponder which of the disciples, already named, is the Beloved Disciple… the most likely answer is the disciple who has been named and has acted prominently in the preceding scene.
"If so, then the Beloved Disciple seems to be Thomas. He enters the drama as a leader of the Twelve and exhorts his co-disciples to follow him (11:16). Then the narrator presents the episode about Lazarus, his resuscitation and its effects (11:17-55), the pre-Passover meal in Bethany (12:1-11), the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and Jesus’ teachings about his passion and the coming judgment (12:12-50). Thus the narrator sets the stage for the entrance of the Beloved Disciple… Convincing proof … that the author is subtly revealing that Thomas is the Beloved Disciple is the lengthy ‘aside’ about Lazarus, which separates the introduction of one disciple, Thomas, from another, ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ … I think the disruption is intentional otherwise the identity of the Beloved Disciple might be too obvious.” (Pg. 252)
He argues against the Lazarus theory: “Lazarus says nothing in the [Gospel]. How can he be identified with the Beloved Disciple, if the latter…is a model for discipleship? … Lazarus does nothing in the [Gospel]… Lazarus is never called a disciple in the [Gospel]. He is not named among the disciples who see the resurrected Jesus (20:19-22); he is not even named among the disciples who are present beside the shore of the Sea of Tiberius (21:2). It is, of course, conceivable that he is one of the two anonymous disciples, but… such an argument would sound like special pleading… Lazarus is introduced for the first time in chapter 11 and not mentioned again after chapter 12. Why does the narrator not describe or imply that Lazarus was present at the Last Supper, witnessed the Crucifixion, and went to the tomb?... How can Lazarus being the witness to ‘these things’ of 21:24 when he is not said to be present during the crucial events in Jesus’ life?... Lazarus is not known in the [Gospel] except in two contiguous chapters. He is not mentioned anywhere in the NT except in the [Gospel]. This fact has prompted many critics to question his existence…
"[W]e know so little about Lazarus. How can he be the Beloved Disciple if the latter is to be the paradigm for beloved discipleship?... it is difficult to imagine Lazarus outrunning Peter to the empty tomb only a few days after being raised from the dead… to argue that ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ must be Lazarus because the narrator says that Jesus ‘loved’ him (11:3, 36) is myopic. The narrator clarifies that Jesus also loved Mary and Martha (11:5), and that he loved all his disciples… (13:1). The Evangelist even stresses that Jesus’ new commandment exhorts all his disciples to love one another as he had loved them (13:34). The narrator has not said that Jesus loved only Lazarus… Jesus loved all his disciples perfectly. Hence, the statement in 13:3 does not indicate that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.” (Pg. 288-290) [Note that a fair number of these statements are circular arguments; e.g., Lazarus’ supposed “non-presence” at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the tomb, the Resurrection, etc. If Lazarus was the BD, then he WAS present at all these events.]
He admits, “Thomas is never called ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ … But then no disciple… is declared by the narrator to be the Beloved Disciple… some experts … contend that [the BD] must be Lazarus because the one Jesus raised from the dead is introduced with the requisite formula:… ‘Lord, he whom you love is ill.’ (11:3) … How devastating is this evidence against identifying Thomas as the Beloved Disciple? Looking on this data alone, one must admit that Lazarus looks more promising than Thomas as the Beloved Disciple. But … no verse in the [Gospel] should be interpreted in isolation from other passages in the [Gospel].” (Pg. 291)
But he later adds, “perhaps an argument will be presented that claims Thomas cannot be the Beloved Disciple because he is not present when Jesus is described a breathing on the disciples and empowering them with the Holy Spirit (20:22)… Thomas is explicitly excluded… He concludes, “Like the Beloved Disciple, Thomas is the hero of the [Gospel]. Like the Beloved Disciple, Thomas is celebrated to be faithful and trustworthy… Is it not now more apparent that in the eyes of the author and editor of the [Gospel] the Beloved Disciple had a ‘twin’: Thomas? Are they not to be, therefore, identified?” (Pg. 312)
He takes one last swipe against the Lazarus theory: “specialists who are convinced that the Beloved Disciple must be Lazarus… might stress that Thomas is presented in chapter 11 along with Lazarus, then the Beloved Disciple is introduced in chapter 13, Thomas is mentioned again in chapter 14, then the Beloved Disciple again in chapter 19 (at the cross), then Thomas again in chapter 20. Furthermore, in chapter 21 Thomas is named and then the Beloved Disciple is described in the boat on the Sea of Tiberias.
"Critics pushing Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple may find that mixing of presentations of Thomas and the Beloved Disciple proves that Thomas cannot be the Beloved Disciple. They may smile at what they are convinced is a contrastingly neat presentation of Lazarus. He is introduced in chapter 11 as the one whom Jesus loved, appears in chapter 12, and then exists so he can reappear as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is introduced in chapter 13… This hypothesis does present a neat order of appearances; but perhaps it is persuasive primarily to those who have already concluded that the Beloved Disciple must be Lazarus… The anticipated criticism from the Lazarus supporters has opened my eyes to a possible unrecognized chiasm in the [Gospel]…” (Pg. 316-317)
For my part, I find Charlesworth’s Thomas theory quite unpersuasive. (Actually, he makes a better case for the Lazarus theory.) But that notwithstanding, this is a highly detailed treatment of the subject, and should be considered “MUST READING” for anyone seriously studying the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
James H. Charlesworth (born 1940) is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1995 book, “In the Gospel of John… the author refers five times to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ From the second through the present twentieth century scholars have sought to identify this ‘disciple,’ traditionally concluding that he is … none other than John the son of Zebedee. This is rather a remarkable accomplishment since ‘John’ is neither mentioned nor named in the [Gospel]… and is perhaps obliquely included in the Appendix, but only in an ambiguous [‘sons of Zebedee’].” (Pg. x) He adds, “After some extended research… I became convinced that anonymity moves to an epithet and finally to a revelation of the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The model disciple is not really anonymous; he is an enigma that is gradually disclosed.” (Pg. xiv-xv)
Having previously noted that “more and more scholars are defending the viability of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple” (Pg. xiii), he then presents a very helpful summary of persons presenting this thesis on pages 185-192, before concluding, “In chapter 5 below, I discuss the major reasons why Lazarus cannot be the Beloved Disciple. Briefly, I argue that the epithet does refer to a real person, but Lazarus may be a narrative fiction. The Beloved Disciple is the model disciple of Jesus, yet Lazarus is never called a disciple, and he does and says nothing.” (Pg. 192)
He argues, “the most likely candidate for the Beloved Disciple is Thomas… Thomas must have knowledge possessed only by the Beloved Disciple; according to the narrator only the Beloved Disciple sees the thrust of the lance (19:32-35). Yet Thomas, whom the narrator otherwise does not indicate could have known about Jesus’ thoratic wound, demands to see and put his hand into it (20:25).” (Pg. 225) He adds, “the reader is prompted to ponder which of the disciples, already named, is the Beloved Disciple… the most likely answer is the disciple who has been named and has acted prominently in the preceding scene.
"If so, then the Beloved Disciple seems to be Thomas. He enters the drama as a leader of the Twelve and exhorts his co-disciples to follow him (11:16). Then the narrator presents the episode about Lazarus, his resuscitation and its effects (11:17-55), the pre-Passover meal in Bethany (12:1-11), the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and Jesus’ teachings about his passion and the coming judgment (12:12-50). Thus the narrator sets the stage for the entrance of the Beloved Disciple… Convincing proof … that the author is subtly revealing that Thomas is the Beloved Disciple is the lengthy ‘aside’ about Lazarus, which separates the introduction of one disciple, Thomas, from another, ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ … I think the disruption is intentional otherwise the identity of the Beloved Disciple might be too obvious.” (Pg. 252)
He argues against the Lazarus theory: “Lazarus says nothing in the [Gospel]. How can he be identified with the Beloved Disciple, if the latter…is a model for discipleship? … Lazarus does nothing in the [Gospel]… Lazarus is never called a disciple in the [Gospel]. He is not named among the disciples who see the resurrected Jesus (20:19-22); he is not even named among the disciples who are present beside the shore of the Sea of Tiberius (21:2). It is, of course, conceivable that he is one of the two anonymous disciples, but… such an argument would sound like special pleading… Lazarus is introduced for the first time in chapter 11 and not mentioned again after chapter 12. Why does the narrator not describe or imply that Lazarus was present at the Last Supper, witnessed the Crucifixion, and went to the tomb?... How can Lazarus being the witness to ‘these things’ of 21:24 when he is not said to be present during the crucial events in Jesus’ life?... Lazarus is not known in the [Gospel] except in two contiguous chapters. He is not mentioned anywhere in the NT except in the [Gospel]. This fact has prompted many critics to question his existence…
"[W]e know so little about Lazarus. How can he be the Beloved Disciple if the latter is to be the paradigm for beloved discipleship?... it is difficult to imagine Lazarus outrunning Peter to the empty tomb only a few days after being raised from the dead… to argue that ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ must be Lazarus because the narrator says that Jesus ‘loved’ him (11:3, 36) is myopic. The narrator clarifies that Jesus also loved Mary and Martha (11:5), and that he loved all his disciples… (13:1). The Evangelist even stresses that Jesus’ new commandment exhorts all his disciples to love one another as he had loved them (13:34). The narrator has not said that Jesus loved only Lazarus… Jesus loved all his disciples perfectly. Hence, the statement in 13:3 does not indicate that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.” (Pg. 288-290) [Note that a fair number of these statements are circular arguments; e.g., Lazarus’ supposed “non-presence” at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the tomb, the Resurrection, etc. If Lazarus was the BD, then he WAS present at all these events.]
He admits, “Thomas is never called ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ … But then no disciple… is declared by the narrator to be the Beloved Disciple… some experts … contend that [the BD] must be Lazarus because the one Jesus raised from the dead is introduced with the requisite formula:… ‘Lord, he whom you love is ill.’ (11:3) … How devastating is this evidence against identifying Thomas as the Beloved Disciple? Looking on this data alone, one must admit that Lazarus looks more promising than Thomas as the Beloved Disciple. But … no verse in the [Gospel] should be interpreted in isolation from other passages in the [Gospel].” (Pg. 291)
But he later adds, “perhaps an argument will be presented that claims Thomas cannot be the Beloved Disciple because he is not present when Jesus is described a breathing on the disciples and empowering them with the Holy Spirit (20:22)… Thomas is explicitly excluded… He concludes, “Like the Beloved Disciple, Thomas is the hero of the [Gospel]. Like the Beloved Disciple, Thomas is celebrated to be faithful and trustworthy… Is it not now more apparent that in the eyes of the author and editor of the [Gospel] the Beloved Disciple had a ‘twin’: Thomas? Are they not to be, therefore, identified?” (Pg. 312)
He takes one last swipe against the Lazarus theory: “specialists who are convinced that the Beloved Disciple must be Lazarus… might stress that Thomas is presented in chapter 11 along with Lazarus, then the Beloved Disciple is introduced in chapter 13, Thomas is mentioned again in chapter 14, then the Beloved Disciple again in chapter 19 (at the cross), then Thomas again in chapter 20. Furthermore, in chapter 21 Thomas is named and then the Beloved Disciple is described in the boat on the Sea of Tiberias.
"Critics pushing Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple may find that mixing of presentations of Thomas and the Beloved Disciple proves that Thomas cannot be the Beloved Disciple. They may smile at what they are convinced is a contrastingly neat presentation of Lazarus. He is introduced in chapter 11 as the one whom Jesus loved, appears in chapter 12, and then exists so he can reappear as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is introduced in chapter 13… This hypothesis does present a neat order of appearances; but perhaps it is persuasive primarily to those who have already concluded that the Beloved Disciple must be Lazarus… The anticipated criticism from the Lazarus supporters has opened my eyes to a possible unrecognized chiasm in the [Gospel]…” (Pg. 316-317)
For my part, I find Charlesworth’s Thomas theory quite unpersuasive. (Actually, he makes a better case for the Lazarus theory.) But that notwithstanding, this is a highly detailed treatment of the subject, and should be considered “MUST READING” for anyone seriously studying the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
February 16, 2019
The only reason I gave this four stars rather than five is because it is not really a book for the general reader but, instead, for other scholars and/or those deeply interested in and knowledgeable about some Scriptural esoterica.
It is absolutely amazing how much there is to be still learned -- and disputed -- about the gospels, those who wrote them, and the relatively believability of their accounts!
The essence of Dr. Charlesworth's book is that the "Beloved Disciple" and the apostle "Thomas" are one and the same!
In the process of substantiating his conclusion, he deals with arguments and analyses from a roomful of scholars from the last few centuries, some of them arguing that the Beloved Disciple was just a literary fiction denoting the "ideal follower," and others arguing cases suggesting figures from John the Baptist to Lazarus.
I cannot possibly in a brief review due any justice to the intricacies of this book's case for Thomas being that disciple, but I wish to mention a matter that I personally found remarkable (and perhaps persuasive): In John's Gospel -- and Charlesworth says that this gospel was not written by Thomas but was based on his testimony -- and unlike the Synoptic accounts, there is one male disciple near the cross at the time of Jesus' crucifixion along with several women: the (unnamed) Beloved Disciple. Alone of all the male apostles, therefore, he witnessed the spear thrust into Jesus' side at the end of Jesus' ordeal.
Charlesworth then points out the meaning of why Thomas -- told by the other disciples that they had seen a resurrected Jesus -- refused to "believe," saying that he could do so only after seeing Jesus' wounds "including the spear wound in his side." Again, Charlesworth argues the uniqueness of this point: none of the other disciples would have witnessed this wound being inflicted! Thus, when Jesus appears to that group a second time, this time when Thomas is among them, Thomas immediately affirms that it is Jesus because he sees the authentic wound in the side.
While some have dismissed John's gospel as too fanciful to be believed, and/or have just expressed discomfort at how significantly it varies from the three Synoptic accounts, Charlesworth argues that it is a carefully written work, heavily influenced by highly educated Jews, many of whom may have come from the Essene community, but all of whom were part of a distinctive Johannine community in the years following the painful rupture between Judaism and Jewish followers of Jesus.
Personally, I think it is wonderful that I continue to encounter works that begin to suggest how truly marvelously and incredibly wide is our universe, including all of the things we have yet to discover and know the truth of.
It is absolutely amazing how much there is to be still learned -- and disputed -- about the gospels, those who wrote them, and the relatively believability of their accounts!
The essence of Dr. Charlesworth's book is that the "Beloved Disciple" and the apostle "Thomas" are one and the same!
In the process of substantiating his conclusion, he deals with arguments and analyses from a roomful of scholars from the last few centuries, some of them arguing that the Beloved Disciple was just a literary fiction denoting the "ideal follower," and others arguing cases suggesting figures from John the Baptist to Lazarus.
I cannot possibly in a brief review due any justice to the intricacies of this book's case for Thomas being that disciple, but I wish to mention a matter that I personally found remarkable (and perhaps persuasive): In John's Gospel -- and Charlesworth says that this gospel was not written by Thomas but was based on his testimony -- and unlike the Synoptic accounts, there is one male disciple near the cross at the time of Jesus' crucifixion along with several women: the (unnamed) Beloved Disciple. Alone of all the male apostles, therefore, he witnessed the spear thrust into Jesus' side at the end of Jesus' ordeal.
Charlesworth then points out the meaning of why Thomas -- told by the other disciples that they had seen a resurrected Jesus -- refused to "believe," saying that he could do so only after seeing Jesus' wounds "including the spear wound in his side." Again, Charlesworth argues the uniqueness of this point: none of the other disciples would have witnessed this wound being inflicted! Thus, when Jesus appears to that group a second time, this time when Thomas is among them, Thomas immediately affirms that it is Jesus because he sees the authentic wound in the side.
While some have dismissed John's gospel as too fanciful to be believed, and/or have just expressed discomfort at how significantly it varies from the three Synoptic accounts, Charlesworth argues that it is a carefully written work, heavily influenced by highly educated Jews, many of whom may have come from the Essene community, but all of whom were part of a distinctive Johannine community in the years following the painful rupture between Judaism and Jewish followers of Jesus.
Personally, I think it is wonderful that I continue to encounter works that begin to suggest how truly marvelously and incredibly wide is our universe, including all of the things we have yet to discover and know the truth of.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews