Читать книгу Man Jesus Loved - Theodore W. Jr. Jennings - Страница 28

We have thus far pursued the clues in the text that place the beloved alongside Peter. Another clue more often pursued to discover the identity of the beloved is the makeup of the fishing party in the final scene of the Gospel where, we subsequently learn, the beloved is also found. Peter is here, as are (for the only time) the unnamed sons of Zebedee.¹¹

Who else?

The first disciple listed here is Thomas the twin. Do we have reason to suppose that Thomas is the beloved?

In his favor we may mention the following:

1 He is placed at the final scene where we subsequently encounter the beloved.

2 He is called “the twin.” What are we to make of this strange designation? Could this be because he is someone else’s twin or because “twin” is used here as an allusion to his relationship to Jesus? In this case, he would not be a blood twin but a twin in the sense of the affectional other of Jesus.12

3 This possibility receives a certain amount of substantiation in that the twin is represented as having an especially fervent attachment to Jesus. In chapter 11, we have the dramatic story of Jesus’ return to Judea on account of the death of his friend Lazarus. He has been camped out on the other side of the Jordan in order to escape the attempt on his life by the Judeans. When news comes of Lazarus’s illness and then death, Jesus leaves his hideout to go into danger to the scene of Lazarus’s death. Here for the first time in the narrative we encounter Thomas. “Thomas, called the twin, said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us go also, that we may die with him’ ” (11:16).They then proceed to Judea where the raising of Lazarus takes place. The determination of Thomas to die with Jesus is especially striking in view of Jesus’ subsequent word that the greatest love is the willingness to die for one’s friends (15:13). Thomas is thus represented as having this love for Jesus in a particularly striking degree.

4 Thomas together with Peter, Philip, and Judas (not Iscariot) are the interlocutors of Jesus in the long final discourse of Jesus with his disciples following the first appearance of the beloved. This discourse deals in part with the nature of love (13:36–14:24). But nothing can be determined from this passage since the question raised by Thomas, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” bears on the question of the destiny of the disciples rather than on the character of love per se.

While some suggestive details are present, no compelling reason exists to identify Thomas with the beloved. Some evidence even seems to count against such an identification. After the beloved sees the empty tomb (with Peter) and is said to “believe,” Jesus appears to the other disciples except Thomas. The latter then refuses to believe the accounts of the others of the appearance of the risen Lord without seeing for himself the wounds of the cross. Subsequently Jesus does appear to him with the others and exposes his wounds to Thomas’s inspection.

Reconciling the belief of the beloved with the subsequent unbelief of Thomas (20:25) is difficult even if not completely impossible. After all, the object of belief is somewhat different. In the first case, the belief addresses the emptiness of the tomb. In the second, the belief has to do with the appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples. Some early traditions maintained that Jesus has been raised but that this resurrection is “enthronement in the heaven.” Thus the empty tomb does not in itself lead to resurrection appearances. But the difficulty with this attempted reconciliation is that what Thomas believes is expressed as the recognition of Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” Thus, what is focused by Thomas’s confession is not that there are “appearances” but that Jesus is Lord and God—precisely the conclusion that would be reached on the basis of the empty tomb, if that had been combined with an enthronement view.

Thus that the author(s) of this text supposed that Thomas was the beloved disciple appears virtually impossible. Despite indications of a strong attachment to Jesus on the part of Thomas and the intriguing designation of him as “twin,” the text makes his identification with the beloved very difficult, if not impossible. In this connection, remember that the designation of the beloved disciple does not emphasize his attachment to Jesus but Jesus’ attachment to him. That is, the evidence of 11:16 concerning Thomas’s attachment to Jesus does nothing to establish the converse: Jesus’ preferential attachment to the beloved disciple.

The next disciple mentioned in the fishing party is Nathaniel. Can a case be made for his identification with the beloved disciple? In his favor, we may mention the following:

1 Nathaniel is singled out by Jesus for special remark when he is recruited in 1:44–51. He is called “an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile”(47). He was known to Jesus before Philip called him (48). He acclaims Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel (48). And Jesus tells him that he will see “heaven opened and the angels ascending and descending on the son of man” (51).

2 Together with Philip, Nathaniel occupies the place that the other Gospels give to the sons of Zebedee, that is, as the second pair that Jesus recruited.

3 Nathaniel is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Identification of the author of a text is sometimes made on flimsier grounds, as for example the identification of Matthew as the author of the first Gospel because of the use of this name in place of Levi or the identification of Luke as the author of the third Gospel because he is among those included in the “we” of certain passages of Acts.

Despite these hints, no reason is available for identifying the beloved disciple with Nathaniel. To be sure, Jesus is represented as having special regard for Nathaniel’s character, as a man without guile. But this fact alone does not argue for the identification of the beloved with him since no stress is placed in the Gospel on the character of the beloved.

Of the disciples named as members of the fishing party, no strong candidates emerge for identification with the beloved disciple. Peter is ruled out. Thomas is unlikely. Nathaniel has no strong claim. The sons of Zebedee (whether James or John) have no case at all. But two unnamed disciples are in the party. Besides those we have considered, are there other candidates from John’s narrative who could be one of these unnamed disciples and thus be a candidate for identification as the disciple Jesus loved? In fact, three additional possibilities are available: Judas not Iscariot, Philip, and Lazarus.

In order to be complete we should mention the Judas who is always identified as “not Iscariot” and to whom tradition ascribes the short letter of Jude. As we have seen, he is recalled as having been present at Jesus’ final discourse (14:22), and he asks the final question in the series: “How will you reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” This scene presents his only appearance in the Gospel of John.¹³

Philip is mentioned as being recruited by Jesus immediately following Andrew and Peter (1:43–48). He is the link to the recruitment of Nathaniel.

Philip also appears in the discussion about how to feed the multitude. He remarks that “200 denarii wouldn’t be enough,” to which Andrew responds by bringing the lad with loaves and fishes (6:5–7).

Philip also is connected with Andrew in that he approaches the latter with news of the inquiry of the Greeks (12:21–22).

Finally, Philip is one of Jesus’ dialogue partners in the last meal (along with Peter, Judas [not Iscariot], and Thomas) where we have previously encountered the beloved disciple. In the dialogue he asks, “Lord, show us the Father and we will be satisfied” (14:8).

Although Philip is mentioned several times, nothing in all of this suggests him as a candidate for identification with the beloved disciple.