Who is the "other disciple" in John 18:16?

Question

After Jesus' arrest:

¹⁵ And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

¹⁶ But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

The 3rd-person reference has led numerous commentators to conclude that the "other disciple" and the "disciple whom Jesus loved" are one and the the same (for example, this was the view of Jerome--see Clarke's commentary).

But other possibilities have been proposed as well. I've seen suggestions ranging everywhere from Mary Magdalene to Judas Iscariot.

This question is not asking who the "disciple whom Jesus loved is", though you are welcome to suggest they are the same person if that is your view--but please explain why. My question is who is the "other disciple", and whether or not his being known to the high priest tells us anything about him?

---

(Note: I'm referring to the disciple as a man because μαθητὴς in this passage is masculine--but feel free to argue otherwise if you believe that interpretation is unwarranted)

Answer 1

It is significant that in the Gospel of John, John never names himself (his name does not appear at all in the Gospel), despite being one of the most prominent disciples, and part of Jesus' inner circle of Peter, James, and John. Matt 17:1, Mark 5:37, 9:2, 14:33, Luke 8:51, etc. He always refers to himself in the third person as either, "that other disciple", or, "another disciple", or, "the one whom Jesus loved", etc. John 18:15, 16, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 21:20, 23, 24, etc.

Note that a simple comparison of John 21:20 with the other Gospels shows that the "other disciple" is definitely John.

Benson observes in his comments on John 18:15 -

another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person.

Similarly, Benson observes:

Another disciple - Not improbably John. Some critics, however, have supposed that this disciple was one who dwelt at Jerusalem, and who, not being a Galilean, could enter the palace without suspicion. John, however, mentions the circumstance of his being known to them, to show why it was that he was not questioned as Peter was.

Similarly, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary -

and … another disciple—Rather, "the other disciple"—our Evangelist himself, no doubt.

The Pulpit commentary also says this -

And also another disciple: but that disciple was known to the high priest, and therefore to the officials, and went fix with Jesus into (εἰς τὴν, right within) the court of the high priest; for he was well known to be, and from the first did not pretend to be anything else than, one of the disciples of Jesus. From the known habit of the evangelist in other places, the vast majority of commentators at once conclude (see Introduction, p. 54.) that the writer designates himself by this reference.

While this is impressive, it is not the unanimous opinion of all commentators, simply a large majority. My view is based on the final verse of John's Gospel that "the other disciple" is definitely John.

John 21:24 NKJV

This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Answer 2

The other disciple is very likely to be Judas, instead of John. Reason 1: Judas is the only disciple from South, not from Galilee. Reason 2: Judas is known to the high priest because he and the high priest have agreement beforehand for arresting Jesus. Reason3: He does not seem to care about the arrest of Jesus and is not with Peter always as John used to be.

Answer 3

Known unto the High Priest The only description of this "other disciple" is that he was known to the high priest, and this bit of information is mentioned, not once, but twice!

This could hardly be John, the close disciple of Jesus. His occupation, and association with Christ would not have ingratiated him to the high priest. And there were many other disciples of Jesus than the Twelve.

We recall that Nicodemus was a disciple (by night) and he was a ruler of the Jews and Jesus called him "a master of Israel." (John 3:1, 10) He would have had access to the High Priest.

And then there was Joseph of Arimathaea, who had access to the powers-that-be in Jerusalem (Pilate, the Roman procurator, John 19:38). He may also have known the High Priest from business dealings with the upper class. In Luke's Gospel, he is called "a counselor, who had not consented to the deed..." (Luke 23:50-51, Mark 15:43). This wording definitely implies that he was in the company of the rulers, perhaps even the Sanhedrin! He is also called "very rich" so there is no doubt he would be known by the priestly aristocracy.

I submit these men for your consideration as to the identity of the "other disciple."

Answer 4

Some scholars suggest the author of the Book of John to be Lazarus. My question concerns verses 15-16 of the 18th chapter of John, ie “another disciple” who was known to the high priest. Some have said that Lazarus would have been known to the High Priest and therefore could ask entrance for Peter…. my question…was Lazarus a Priest or of the tribe of Levi?

Answer 5

Would Lazarus have been allowed into the chief priest's house bearing in mind they wanted to kill him previously (John 12:10)?