According to Wikipedia:

The Gospel [of John]'s authorship is anonymous. Its Chapter 21 states it derives from the testimony of the 'disciple whom Jesus loved.' Along with Peter, the unnamed disciple is especially close to Jesus, and early-church tradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together, yet, according to most modern scholars, John was not the author of any of these books.

Assuming the author can be identified with disciple whom Jesus loved, Wikipedia gives us a number of possibilities:

  1. John Zebedee
  2. Lazarus of Bethany
  3. Mary Magdalene
  4. Judah, son of Jesus
  5. Unknown priest or disciple
  6. Both Lazarus and Martha's son
  7. Jesus' bother James

This seems a comprehensive list (especially with the inclusion of #5). Can we pare it down by eliminating any clearly speculative suggestions? Can we re-order the list according to which are most likely?

  • 4
    Are you asking for the identity of the beloved disciple, or of the author of the gospel? They may not have been the same person. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 20:50
  • @Bruce: Good point. I'm really interested in getting the main arguments for who wrote John, so I amended the question. Perhaps I should divide it into two separate questions, however. We have a good answer on "Who was the Beloved Disciple?", so maybe I should ask the authorship question as a second post. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 21:04
  • @Bruce: On second thought, I asked another question to cover the authorship angle. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 21:39

6 Answers 6


The gospel of John only gives a few clues to the identity of the beloved disciple.

  • John 13:23 indicates that this disciple was seated next to Jesus at the Last Supper.
  • John 19:27 indicates that he took care of Jesus' mother after the crucifixion.
  • John 20:2 indicates that he went with Peter to see the empty tomb.
  • John 21:7 indicates that he was present when Jesus appeared to Peter and asked him the threefold "Do you love me?"
  • John 21:21 refers to a rumor that this disciple would never die.
  • John 21:24 indicates that his testimony is the source for this gospel.

Leading Candidates

  • John, son of Zebedee: This is the traditional answer. The second century bishop Irenaeus of Lyons—a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John—says John was "the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast," a reference to John 13:23.

    Aside from tradition, this view is supported by comparison with the synoptic gospels, in which John is one of Jesus' inner circle.

    John was also one of the 12, who according to Mark 14:16-17 shared the last supper with Jesus.

    Finally, John was a fisherman before being called by Jesus, according to Matthew 4:21.

  • Lazarus: Ben Witherington has suggested this name based on the statement in John 11:5 that Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters. Before this point, the gospel does not mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved".

    Witherington also suggests that Lazarus was the "other disciple" of John 18:15, who was known to the high priest and was able to get Peter into the courtyard. Lazarus, as a native of Judea, would be far more likely to have this access than John the Galilean fisherman.

    Finally, the sons of Zebedee are named in John 21:2, while the beloved disciple is mentioned later in the chapter.

  • James, brother of Jesus: This is based on Jesus' statement to Mary, "Here is your son" in John 19:26.

    James also became the head of the church after Pentecost, which indicates his importance and perhaps his closeness to Jesus.

Speculative Candidates

All the other candidates are highly speculative and do not fit the above criteria.

  • Mary Magdalene: the beloved disciple is consistently identified as a man.
  • Both Lazarus and Martha's son: is based on the beloved disciple of John 21 being a different person from the one in John 13-20.
  • Judah, son of Jesus: is not known to have existed.
  • Unknown priest or disciple: if he was that close to Jesus, it is highly unlikely he would not be mentioned elsewhere.


Of these candidates, John is by far the most likely. He is the only candidate that fits all the criteria. He has also been identified as the beloved disciple since the early days of the church.

Lazarus is an intriguing possibility, but since he is not even mentioned in the other gospels, it's hard to see how he could be considered closer to Jesus than the 12.

James makes sense based on familial connections, but the gospels do not indicate that he was a disciple of Jesus before the resurrection.


We can eliminate #4 as that is based on the speculation that Jesus had a son. Even if he had been married (also speculation), then we would have to assume he married at the normal age for a Jewish male, around 15-18. As he was most likely 33, the child would be 16 at the most (giving the couple a little time to themselves before having a child).

We can also eliminate #7 as the Disciple whom Jesus Loved was one of the Twelve Apostles (present at the Last Supper sitting at the head table and next to Jesus) and James was not a believer until after the resurrection. Also, the article states that this theory is based on a literal interpretation of "woman, behold your son." If the Disciple were James, there would be no reason to state this obvious fact. Such a statement in the NT times was to assign responsibility of a dependent to another person. If this were James, Jesus would not have to say anything as James would accept the responsibility as part of his Jewish heritage to honor his father and mother.

All references to the Disciple use masculine pronouns, eliminating Mary.

We can eliminate most of the others for the reason of the Disciple having to be one of the 12.

At all times we see the Disciple whom Jesus Loved, he is shown to be one of the 12. In John's Gospel, John son of Zebedee himself is never named even though he plays a prominent role in the other gospels. That is the main reason I identify the Disciple with John son of Zebedee.

  • 3
    I agree with most of your logic, but I wonder if we can be sure that only the Twelve (and Jesus) were at the Last Supper? I agree we can eliminate James (who would not have been there), but I don't know if we can eliminate Lazarus or other disciples who are not among the 12 on that basis. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 19:00
  • Also (and this is a nitpick), I'm not sure couples took "a little time to themselves" in those days. But #4 sure seems like a non-serious contender even without that tidbit. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 19:13
  • According to the rabbinic writings, one of the times "the absorbant" was allowed was after marriage to allow the couple to adjust to married life. The absorbant was a cotton diaphragm contraceptive. I'll add an edit regarding the reason to be one of the 12.
    – Frank Luke
    Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 20:20
  • My wife and I had a similar idea about preventing pregnancy for the first year. Our contraceptive failed, however. I've never heard that the concept has any history before the Modern era. Interesting. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 21:09
  • I hope you don't mind, but I shifted the thrust of the question slightly. I think your answer actually fits the modified question better than the original. Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 21:38

John 21:20,24 says that the beloved disciple "wrote these words," and with the almost universal assumption that the Gospel of John was written by John son of Zebedee, that should answer the question. However, the gospel was originally anonymous, and Burton L. Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 215, that the Gospel was then attributed to the Gnostic, Cerinthus, so the attribution to John the disciple must have taken place quite late in the second century. Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, pages 362,368-9, that it is doubted by most scholars that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus, which would now seem to rule the disciple John out as the beloved disciple.

James, brother of Jesus, should be ruled out because of John 26-27, in which Jesus asks the beloved disciple to treat Mary as if she were his mother, and tells Mary to think of the disciple as her son. This dialogue would be too stilted and meaningless if it were Mary's son standing at the foot of the cross.

The other identified candidates in the list can be ruled out as either too speculative and improbable, or because Mary Magdalene's gender is wrong for the gender of the text.

Now, we either give up and say, as in list item #5 from the question, that the beloved disciple was an "unknown priest or disciple," or we can extend the search outside the list.

Brown says (ibid, page 369) that some scholars have evaluated the beloved disciple as a pure symbol, created to model the perfect disciple. That he is never given a name and that he appears alongside Peter in scenes known to us from the Synoptic Gospels where no such figure is mentioned have been invoked as a proof of nonhistoricity. This certainly gives us a credible answer, which a priest of Brown's standing would be comfortable with.

However, we can take this position a step further, with textual evidence that the beloved disciple was not only a symbol of the perfect disciple but had a quite specific role in John's Gospel. The New Testament scholar, Elaine Pagels, was the first to realise why this disciple was described in this way. In Beyond Belief, pages 61-63, she explains that she discerns in John’s Gospel a distinct bias against Peter. She noticed that the beloved disciple, in all but one case, was contrasted with the apostle Peter and always came out the more worthy apostle. Even the name 'disciple whom Jesus loved' suggests to us that Jesus saw him as more worthy than Peter (or any other disciple, but it is only Peter he is compared with). John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, page 566, also points to typically oblique examples of the exaltation of the Beloved Disciple over Peter in John's gospel. Perhaps some extracts from John chapter 21 will serve to illustrate this:

  • 21:7 - the disciple whom Jesus loved realised that it was Jesus and told this to Peter, who had remained unaware that the miraculous catch of fishes was the work of the Lord.
  • 21:15-17, Jesus asks Peter three times whether he loves him. John Carroll explains in The Existential Jesus, pages 144-5 that this is Peter's final humiliation. Jesus addressed him each time theatrically as “Simon, son of Jonah”, not as Peter, the name always previously used by Jesus, as if to humiliate Peter in front of the other disciples. The first time, Jesus asks about sacred love (Greek: agape) and the question is comparative: Do you love me more than these [the other disciples]? Peter answers that he loves him, but only using the Greek word for friendly or brotherly love (philia). Not satisfied, Jesus again asks Peter, “Do you love me?” Again, Jesus asks about sacred love (agape) but this time does not ask whether Peter loves Jesus more than the others. Again, Peter replies with the Greek word for brotherly love (philia). In the third questioning, Jesus asks only whether Peter had brotherly love for him (philia). He accepts that this was the most that Peter would give. Peter is upset that it has been necessary to ask him three times, but Jesus knows Peter had denied him three times.
  • In 21:21, Peter petulently asks Jesus about the beloved disciple, "And what shall this man do?" Jesus quite properly responds, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

From the above, it seems that the author of John sought to tone down what he saw as excessive veneration of St Peter early in the second century. I believe the most credible explanation for the beloved disciple is that he was a literary creation intended to achieve a theological purpose.


A similar question was raised in another Biblical Hermeneutics posting and part of the response posted relates to this question, so I will share it here.

There are facts recorded about John that are mutually exclusive with facts that the author of the fourth gospel tells us about himself. Of course, there is no problem with scripture. Rather this problem only occurs when one tries to force the unbiblical John tradition on the text, in spite of the biblical evidence to the contrary. So the false tradition that has taught people to ignore the biblical evidence and follow after non-Bible sources who claim this unnamed author was John is the cause of the problem.

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free eBook that presents the biblical evidence that can prove the beloved disciple was not John (including the mutually exclusive facts noted above) and those who care to weigh the biblical evidence on this topic may find this resource helpful as they seek the guidance of scripture when it comes to answering questions about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel.

While a comment claims John "is the only candidate that fits all the criteria" and suggests the John idea "is supported by comparison with the synoptic gospels", the Bible proves otherwise. The truth in fact is the writers of the first three gospels treat John and the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" like different people (because they were different people). They freely mention John but never mention the beloved disciple and even omit him when he is playing a material role in the event being described.

The idea that the fourth gospel is 'John's eyewitness testimony' ignores the fact, for example, that it is the only gospel that does not mention the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Mt. of Transfiguration, and the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane - though John was one of only three eyewitnesses to these events. In fact, the least helpful of the four gospels, when it comes to learning about the things John witnessed, said, and did during the ministry of Jesus is the gospel which men mistakenly attributed to John.

  • 1
    It should be pointed out, though, that the first ones to attribute this gospel to John were people who knew him personally, and that the church community that put the New Testament together included this gospel only because it carried John's name and authority. Commented Feb 9, 2012 at 18:06
  • +1 for the last paragraph which is thought-provoking. I would like to encourage you to take a less personal tone when referring to other answers, and while linking to and/or promoting external resources is absolutely fine, it is much more helpful to folk here if you include a brief summary of the content in your answer. Are you willing to do a bit of editing to your answer? There is no need to answer again - editing is generally preferred on the SE network. Commented Feb 13, 2012 at 7:40
  • 4
    I actually could vote this up if you would just mention Lazarus by name in your answer rather than making me download and read a 56-page .pdf to find out who you are talking about. Commented Feb 15, 2012 at 5:34

John and his brother James were sons of Zebedee and Galilean fishermen. The beloved disciple had access to the high priest's home and apparently was familiar with the upper social classes in Jerusalem. This would be highly unlikely for a Galilean since the Judeans looked upon anyone from Galilee as a hick. (Remember Peter being identified by his accent in the high priest's courtyard?) In John's Gospel it is this beloved disciple who paves the way for Peter to enter the courtyard of the high priest. I suspect his identity will remain a Bible mystery for the ages.

  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics SE, thanks for contributing! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other SEs. Our community looks for answers to reflect a good degree of research and references. Typically, we like answers that cite scholarly references. Don't just tell us what you know, tell us how you know it. Commented Jun 30, 2016 at 19:10

There are no reasons to assume the beloved disciple was one of the twelve. He appears to be based in Jerusalem not Galilee. The house where the last supper took place in John, appears from internal clues to be in the Priestly district of Jerusalem and the beloved disciple sits in the place of the host, so presumably he lived there. Furthermore when Jesus is arrested, Peter and that other disciple go to the temple to see if they can get in to see Jesus: Peter is kept waiting outside, but the beloved disciple is let in because he knows the High Priest, he then gets permission for Peter to be let in. Does this character sound like a Galilean fisherman to you? He sounds like he's a priest. It's also interesting that when Peter and John were brought before the High Priest in the Acts; the High Priest didn't know who they were.The Gospel of John is constructed around the feasts of the temple in quite a skilful; almost liturgical way; again why is that so? For a long time I thought that Lazarus was the beloved disciple, his appearance in the text seems to match up with the appearance of the beloved disciple and he is stated as being loved by Jesus, also Bethany is close to Jerusalem where the beloved disciple appears to be based. Also the controversy over whether the beloved disciple would die makes sense if he was Lazarus and had been raised from the dead. On the other hand, Bethany is not where the last supper happened, furthermore, Lazarus kept a low profile for fear of being arrested by the religious authorities; yet the beloved disciple openly went to the temple when Jesus was arrested, and presumably spoke to Caiaphas and or other important temple figures, he also stood openly at the foot of the cross, apparently without fear of arrest. Does that sound like Lazarus?! The internal clues seem to indicate a priest from Jerusalem! I do not believe the beloved disciple is a literary invention, would a figure who was friends with the High Priest and lived in the Priestly district be the kind of figure that the Johanine community would invent? Especially with their antagonism to towards the Temple hierarchy. It might be said that they invented a good priest, to shame the bad priests who didn't believe in Jesus, but this is hardly tenable, since the clues suggesting the beloved disciples identity as a priest are so vague, that until recently no one has really picked up on it; at least in a textual way, although Papius and others seemed to think the beloved disciple was a Priest. If anything the beloved disciples links with the temple are down played even though they are there.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.