WHO WAS THE LOVED DISCIPLE?
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sm,—M. B. B. writes in your current issue, "Among the internal" evidences that John was the writer of the Fourth Gospel and the beloved disciple are the intimate relations between Peter, James and John and their Teacher as evidenced by their 'presence at the Transfiguration and in Gethsemane." Later, he adds, "The accounts of the Transfiguration and of the scene in the Garden must have been supplied by an eye-witness, shewing that one of the disciples just named did not succumb to lethargy." The non-mention of the-name he thinks is due to "self-effacing love." I fear I do not follow M: B. B.'s argument. The Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden do not appear at all in the Fourth Gospel. "The internal evidences" are simply not there. It is one thing for love to efface itself : quite another for it to efface the events to which it is supposed to bear witness. Elsewhere M. B. B. speaks of the transformation of "the son of thunder " into "the benign writer of the Three -Epistles." If we knew that the Apostle was the author of the Johannine Epistles, this would be proof indeed. As it is, it is the assuming of what has to be proved. With regard to Caiaphas, he might be able to ignore his " acquaintance " in the Palace, but it would be wellnigh impossible for him to do so when (Acts iv.) John was brought up for trial before him. And others were on the Bench with him who would remind him of the identity of this " unlearned and ignorant" man. But I have made the point before, and must not trespass on your space. I have dealt also with the Lucan omission of John's presence at the Tomb—possibly the passage is an interpo- latiom but the omission is not the less inexplicable on that account.—! am, Sir, &c.,- W. K. FLEXING.
Previous page
