SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

“ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST,” OR “THE BELOVED DISCIPLE”?
The general approach to the study of the second figure in the work of art parallels our
examination of the figure of “Christ” or “Jesus.” In the medieval period in which the Cleveland
piece was produced, there was a common understanding concerning the identity of the second
figure. It was undoubtedly St. John the Apostle-Evangelist. The hyphenated term indicates the
general assumption of medieval Christians that it was indeed the very same John, son of
Zebedee, who was called by Jesus to be one of his Twelve Apostles, and who also wrote the
Gospel known as the Gospel of John. This general assumption has roots that date back to
perhaps the second century.
Like all scholarly disciplines, the field of biblical research continues to progress in our day.
Some of this research has ‘trickled down’ into popular understanding; much has not. The past
forty years have witnessed great strides in research on the Gospel of John. In particular, the
work of Raymond E. Brown has been instrumental in shaping many current scholarly debates
concerning the Gospel of John. 8 It is Brown’s approach to John’s Gospel that I bring to bear on
the discussion of “Christ and St. John the Evangelist.”
Early in his career as a scholar of the Johannine Gospel, Brown affirms the traditional position
“associating the Fourth Gospel with John son of Zebedee…” 9 However, some years later Brown
presents evidence that leads him to change his mind and conclude that the writer of the Gospel
of John should probably not be identified with the apostle John, son of Zebedee. 10 There is no
evidence internal to the Gospel of John to suggest this identification. The traditional
interpretation that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23) was the apostle John cannot
be textually substantiated. 11 This identification is the result of an inference made quite early in
the history of the Church. The interpretive inference involves 2 steps. First, an inference is
made that the unnamed disciple of John 13:23 is John, son of Zebedee, the apostle himself.
The argument is that the author modestly speaks of himself without overtly naming himself and
without employing the first person pronoun: instead of writing “I leaned over…” the author
more humbly refers to himself in the third person “he leaned over…” (John 13:25). The
grammatical referent of “he” is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23)
A second step in this association of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with John the Apostle
arises from the text of John 21:20-25. Verse 24 of this text states: “It is this disciple who
testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.” There is
an apparent identification of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with the writer of the gospel.
While this association appears clear, it does not follow that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is
the same person as the apostle John, son of Zebedee.
It must be pointed out that this inference identifying the writer of the Gospel of John with the
apostle John cannot conclusively be proven to be false. However, Brown’s study of the
Johannine text as a whole, as well as the text’s place within the broader context of the history
and literature of the entire New Testament, point to a different conclusion. Brown argues that
the community of Christians that traced its lineage back to the “Beloved Disciple” was different
in many respects from the other early Christian communities that linked their existence to one
or other of the “twelve apostles.” 12
17