Disciple whom Jesus loved

The phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Ancient Greek: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, romanized: ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2; "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" (τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ton allon mathētēn hon ephilei ho Iēsous), is used six times in the Gospel of John,[1] but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus.

[23] The assumption that the beloved disciple was one of the Apostles is based on the observation that he was apparently present at the Last Supper, and Matthew and Mark state that Jesus ate with the Twelve.

[26] Nevertheless, while some modern academics continue to share the view of Augustine and Polycrates,[27][28] the position raises questions as to why the writer does not describe the Transfiguration[29] or his calling to discipleship[30] if he truly were John the son of Zebedee.

Tilborg suggests that the portrait in the Gospel of John is "positively attuned to the development of possibly homosexual behaviour".

Meanwhile, theologian Ismo Dunderberg has also explored the issue and argues that the absence of accepted Greek terms for "lover" and "beloved" discounts an erotic reading.

[31][32] As early as the sixteenth century (albeit in a heretical context) – it was documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe, who was accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma".

[33] In accusing Marlowe of the "sinful nature" of homosexual acts, James I of England inevitably invited comparisons to his own erotic relationship with the Duke of Buckingham, which he also compared with that of the beloved disciple.

[34] Finally, Francesco Calcagno, a friar of Venice,[35] faced trial and was executed in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".

John 19:25–27 in particular only mentions the beloved disciple's presence at the foot of the cross immediately after Mary Magdalene is named among the list of women also present and not prior.

[46] Frederick Baltz asserts that the Lazarus identification, the evidence suggesting that the beloved disciple was a priest, and the ancient John tradition are all correct.

[50] The British scholar Richard Bauckham[51] reaches the similar conclusion that the beloved disciple, who also authored the Gospel attributed to John, was probably a literarily sophisticated member of the surprisingly extensive high priestly family clan.

Another is that concealment served political or security reasons, made necessary by the threat of persecution or embarrassment during the time of the Gospel's publication.

The author may have been a highly placed person in Jerusalem who was hiding his affiliation with Christianity,[51] or the anonymity may have been appropriate for one living the withdrawn life of an ascetic, and one of the many unnamed disciples in the Gospel may have been either the beloved disciple himself or others under his guidance, who out of the humility of their ascetic commitment hid their identity or subsumed their witness under that of their spiritual master.

[58]In art, the beloved disciple is often portrayed as a beardless youth, usually as one of the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper or with Mary at the crucifixion.