The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 49

and able to nsk a prh·nt-0 question and recci'\"e an nnswer unnoticed by the rest (eh. xviil, 23). "Peter nnd this other di~ciple" are both wiLh our Lonl in the court of Annns (eh. xviii. 16). Peter denies his Master, and, as we learn from the synoptic narmtivc weut out, but "the other disciple" remained, and, while the discussion before Cninp'lrns is omittC'd by the present writer ns havin~ been fully detailed, he seems to hnve clung ao closely to his Master that much of the converse with Pilnte, omitted by the general trndition, was rescned by him from oblivion. He is, moreover, stationed by the cross (eh. xix. 25, 26), when he received the solemn commission to guard as a son the sacred mother of the Lord. In eh. xx. 2-10 the" disciple whom Jesus loved" represents him- self as believing in the Resurrection, and returning (1rpbs fouTovs) with Peter. The other most interesting reference to this unnamed disci1)!e is in the final scenes of eh. xxi. There he is represented as the first to recognize, and not for the first time, the risen Lord. The interdew with Peter is followed by the question (ver. 21), "What shall this man be [ or 'do']?" ( ofiTos 3~ Ti;). The answer is one which led, as tbo writer admits, to the report (l\d-yos) "that that disciple should not die." But he declares that this was a misinterpretation of the Lord's words. To this statement there is an appendix of '\"ast interest. The present tense (.! µ.a,pTUp,;w) is used when speaking of the life- witness of that disciple, and the aorist (6 -ypd.1/,u) when refen-ing to his work, and the first person 11lural (ot'3ctfL•") when announcing a momentous fact about him. "We know" that this testimony is (not cl\'78n,,j, but cll\'78~s-not "veritable," but) "trust- worthy." These words show that the '\"erses were written by those who knew the writer and valued his living words. The testimony unhesitatingly affirms that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the writer of tlie Gospel. There is no proof whatever that this Go~pel was ever circulated without this twenty-fourth verse, and consequently we possess a singularly early vindication, not only of the value of the document, but of the closely approximate identification of the author with one of the sons of Zebedee. The group of the disciples mentioned in eh. xxi. 2 consists of (1) Simon Peter, who is especially in this scene distingnished from the nameless disciple; (2) Thomas; (3) Nathanael; (4, 5) the two sons of Zebedee; and (6, 7) two other of his disciples. Now, since Thomas and Nathanael are speciullJ' mentioned by name elsewhere, Nathanael is clearly distinguished from the nameless disciple in eh. i. 35, etc., and Thomas from the rest of the eleven, so it is certain that neither Peter, Thomas, nor Nathanael could have been the beloved disciple. One of the" sons of Zebedee," James, was the first of the apostles to suffer for his Lord (Acts xii. 1, 2). It remains that the epilogue asserts that he was either John the son of Zebedee or one of two others who are altogether unnamed. It has been conjectured that these may have been Andrew and Philip; but since these apostles are elsewhere mentioned by name, it is improbable that they are thus referred to, and, from being placed last, were far more probably not members of the apostolic circle at all. It would be quite in harmony with the writer's manner throughout, that he should put the two sons of Zebedee last in his enumeration of apostles. Here, in fact, the ~noptic narratives and the Acts come to our aid, for throughout the former John and James, with Peter, form the innermost group of our Lord's best-loved dis- ciples, and, from the beginning to the end, John, son of Zebedee, occupies a prominent position. Whither has he disappeared, if the disciple whom Jesus loved be not he? for if he be not the son of Zebedee, he is not once mentioned in the Fourth Gos1,el. Again, Peter and John are the two most prominent figures in the early Church history (Acts iiL 1, etc.; iv. 13; viii. 14; xii. 2, 3; and of. Acts xv. with Gal. ii. 9), where Peter and John were still together with James the Lord's brother, pillars of the mother Church. Seeing that we know from the synoptic narrative that James and John were brothers, and from several passages in this Gospel and in the synoptists tbat Andrew and Simon Peter (or Cephas) were brothers, and that the four were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, it is next to impossible to refrain from the impression that, when in eh. i. 30, etc., Andrew, who, mentioned as the brother of Simon, is stated to be one of the two disciples of John the Baptist who followed Jesus, the other unnamed one was John the son of Zebedee. It has often been remarked that whereas the other writers speak of John the ,F7,ptist, using this appellative to distinguish him from other Johns, this Fourth Goepel never gives the Baptist any other designation than John. Ile may have been acquaiutcd with the Baptist bef0re he had acquired that well-known titlo which technically distinguished him.  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. lv