By Reverand Theodore W. Cooley
In 1979 my wife, Eleanor Cooley, did a paper for the University of Kansas showing the priority of the Thomas tradition to John’s gospel. Her paper also emphasized John’s very negative interpretation of the teaching and role of Thomas. For over a quarter of a century I have been intrigued by this theme, wondering if all of the disciples present in John’s gospel were treated more for the literary needs of John than for any historical interest. Such an interest on my part has led to this paper, exploring John’s use of the male disciples for his purposes, recognizing that both the women and the beloved disciple, regardless of the beloved’s gender, have problems beyond the scope of this paper.
In the course of this research I have found four points of interest. I am even more certain of the very negative interpretation, almost insulting, that is John’s approach to Thomas and to the Thomas tradition as reflected in the Gospel by that name. I am also convinced that the role of Simon Cephas (Peter) is as negative as John could make it, in light of the importance already given Peter by the emerging Great Church. I strongly suspect that John was aware of at least one of the synoptic writers, most likely Matthew. Finally, I suspect a pro-Hellenistic bias in the utilization of the names of the disciples, though this may be simply a product of the information available to John. In all of this, I feel more confident than ever in understanding John’s gospel as an intentional literary use of the names of the male disciples for his own purposes. The documentation of these points of interest are included in the discussion of each disciple, followed by the relevant conclusions.
Eight of the disciples mentioned in the Synoptics do not appear at all in John’s gospel.1 James and John (sons of Zebedee) also do not appear by name or in the main text of the gospel, rather only under their father’s name in a listing of the disciples at the Sea of Galilee in Chapter 21, often considered an addition to the original text of the gospel.2 The six disciples appearing in both John and the Synoptics and the two unique to John’s gospel I have discussed below, with John’s utilization of their roles for his purposes described as I understand them.
As a disciple, Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned once in both John’s and Matthew’s gospels. In the burial sequence of John’s gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is linked with Nicodemus, without Nicodemus being identified as a disciple. There has been no work, to my knowledge, discussing the pattern of both Matthew and John referring to Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple while this identification is not present in the other Synoptics.
Nathaniel appears six times in John, though he is otherwise unknown. The name appears twice in the LXX in genealogical lists.3 The final mention of Nathaniel in John 21 is, like the Sons of Zebedee, a passing reference only. The first five occurrences are part of the calling of the disciples from John 1:45-49. Whether this disciple has a historical basis or is a literary need of John may not be as important as is John’s literary use of the Jewish name, Nathaniel, as part of a couplet pared with Philip and contrasted to Andrew and Simon (called Cephas) who immediately proceeds the Philip/Nathaniel couplet. In both cases, Andrew and Philip, Greek names, proceed the calling of Simon and Nathaniel, Semitic names. The usual translations of Jesus’ comment with reference to Nathaniel, as being without deceit or guile, is possibly a weak translation, with other uses of the term approaching treachery in strength.4
Judas the betrayer has the same naming pattern in all four gospels. As his fate is already known, there appears to be no interest in John’s gospel for further enlargement of the story. In all four gospels all mention of this disciple before the last supper is by Judas Iscariot or, for John, twice as Judas son of Simon Iscariot. In all four gospels all mention of Judas after the last supper is simply as Judas. Matthew has simply Judas at the last supper. John first has Judas son of Simon Iscariot then simply Judas. None of the four gospels mix the order of Judas Iscariot followed by Judas. Even though the details of these gospels differ, the use of the name is in identical order. I am proposing that some literary awareness of the synoptic tradition is evident in John’s use of Judas the betrayer.5
By having a disciple by the name of Philip, the extent of Hellenization of Upper Galilee is well illustrated, for this was not only the name of the father of Alexander the Great, but also of a son of Herod the Great, tetrarch of an area Northeast of Galilee,6 as mentioned in Luke 3:1. By having a name so identified with the power structure, the parents of Philip must have had some level of comfort with the Greek culture and language, significantly removed from the Judean scene. It would be difficult to visualize a devout Jewish family in Judea giving such a name to a son. As Galilee was under Greek control from the time of Alexander to the conquest under the Hasmoneans and again after 63 BCE under Roman control, with less than a century of Jewish control, the extent of Hellenization is probably underestimated in most studies.
Philip is named only once in the Synoptics, in the listing of the twelve. Philip, in twelve appearances John’s gospel,7 fulfills the role of Greek culture or language, for John’s gospel uses him in the role of a hellenized Jew or one comfortable with Greeks. The last two appearances of Philip in John 14 have him as the questioner of Jesus, offering a lead-in to elaboration by Jesus in the fashion of Greek dialogues. In the other three sections where Philip appears he is coupled in some manner with Andrew, another disciple with a Greek name, though possibly not so offensive from the viewpoint of Jewish nationalism. At the feeding of the five thousand, Philip is questioned as to a food source before Andrew brings the lad with the offering of his lunch. The Greeks seeking Jesus in John 12 come first to Philip, who then seeks out Andrew before going on to Jesus. The first appearance of Philip, in the second couplet of the calling of the disciples, has Philip calling Nathaniel and bringing him to Jesus.
Andrew, listed in all the gospels as the brother of Simon Cephas (Peter), carries a Greek name, though his brother a Semitic one, indicating a family with Hellenistic influence though possibly not to the degree which may have been in Philip’s home. All five of the references to Andrew in John’s gospel have him pared with Philip and have been discussed above.8
Simon, surnamed Cephas (Peter) by Jesus, according to all four Gospels, appears in thirty-three verses in John’s gospel as Simon, Peter, or both, though ten of these are in chapter 21, most of which are connected with the forgiveness granted to him in that additional chapter.9 He is brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew according to John’s gospel, while Matthew’s gospel has Simon called directly by Jesus. The couplet including Simon’s call in John has the interesting sequence of Andrew, Greek name, bringing Simon, Semitic name, followed by Philip, Greek name, bringing Nathaniel, Semitic name. Since Nathaniel is without guile (or some darker characteristic, deceit, cunning, falseness, up to treachery),10 this may be an insinuation that Simon does have guile (treachery). This may point to Simon Cephas’ denial (treachery) later in the gospel, or perhaps some other awareness of Simon Peter’s flawed character, such as what Paul calls hypocrisy in his own confrontation, in Galatians 2, with Cephas at Antioch of Syria.11
In John 6:68-70 Simon acknowledges Jesus having the words of eternal life, but it is the collective we of the disciples who believe and know. In the foot washing sequence of John 13 Simon is in the rejection mode until Jesus offers an explanation, at which time Simon requests more than what is offered by Jesus, certainly an attempt to guile himself into a larger blessing.. In the Synoptics Jesus simply makes a statement of betrayal at the last supper. John’s gospel has Simon asking the beloved disciple the identity of the betrayer. In this Simon is placed in a secondary role to the beloved disciple. In 13:36-37 Simon offers to lay down his own life, only to be told by Jesus of Simon’s own impending denial (treachery).
In 18:10-11, John’s gospel assigns Simon the role of the swordsman, who is not identified in the Synoptics. This conveys the image of both violence and impetuousness as part of his character. The denial sequence later in the same chapter is framed to show deceit in Simon’s actions, protecting himself at the expense of Jesus. Three times John’s gospel identifies Judas as son of Simon Iscariot.12 This is linking the name Simon with betrayal. As persecutions had almost certainly taken place by the time of John’s writing, denial may well have taken the place of betrayal as the ultimate treachery.
With Paul’s account in I Corinthians 15, Simon Cephas is shown in John’s gospel as the first witness to the resurrection, though John’s gospel has extensive additions including both the beloved disciple and Mary Magdalene which decrease the role of Simon. The references in the appended chapter 21 grant the forgiveness to Simon necessary to include this gospel in the acceptance of the Great Church, who already honored Simon’s memory.
Thomas is listed once each in the Synoptics, as one of the twelve. He has a much larger role in John’s gospel.13 His first appearance in 11:16 follows Jesus’ statement of journeying to raise Lazareth. Thomas’ response is “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”14 This is a total misinterpretation of Jesus’ stated intention. Such a twisting of the understanding, from bringing life to expecting death, should be seen as a deliberate statement of the gospel of John’s understanding of Thomas’ place in the community.15
In 20:19-25 the anti-Thomas polemic becomes even sharper. Thomas is not present for the granting of the Holy Spirit. Thomas is not empowered to forgive or retain sin. Nowhere, including the brief mention of Thomas in chapter 21, is this denial of apostolic authority ever removed. Simon Cephas (Peter) has a dialogue which can be interpreted as forgiveness for denial in chapter 21. Thomas is never re-included in apostolic authority.16
The final teaching of the first edition of the gospel emphasizes John’s emphasis on the need to “believe.” This leads to a confession of faith by Thomas (v. 28) and the emphasis upon belief (v. 29). This may be intentionally in contrast to Thomas or to the Gospel by that name (a gospel moving in a gnosticizing direction), both giving emphasis to knowledge, which the Johnannan tradition counters with belief.17
Another connection with the Gospel of Thomas is the use of the name Didymus Thomas, (actually translated twin [Didymus in Greek] twin [Thomas in Aramaic]), showing a connection not present in the Synoptics to the name Judas Didymus Thomas, as used in the Gospel of Thomas and other, later, Thomas literature.18
Finally, the dialogue referring to Jesus going to prepare “dwelling places” in 14:1-7 has interesting parallels to I Enoch.19 The translation of Charles reads for I Enoch 39:4-5:
4. “And there I saw another vision, the dwelling places of the holy
And the resting places of the righteous.
5. Here my eyes saw their dwellings with His righteous angels,
And their resting places with the holy.“20
Thus, for John’s gospel, Thomas saying “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?“ implies that Thomas was unaware of or opposed to concerns for the afterlife as his tradition emphasized knowledge, reflected in the Gospel of Thomas having no reference to either the passion or the resurrection.
One final disciple remains. In 14:18-24, there is a single reference to “Judas not Iscariot.” This has the same motif as Thomas. Jesus makes a statement of the love of the Father and revelation, with Judas, not Iscariot, responding with a very physical and this worldly misunderstanding . In two Syriac translations of this passage, Thomas is the named as the disciple, either simply Thomas, or Judas Thomas.21 Thus again John’s gospel seems to know the Thomas tradition by this being Thomas, known with the Gospel of Thomas as Judas Didymus Thomas.
In conclusion, I believe the identifying of Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple only in Matthew and John and the similar ratios and identical order of Judas Iscariot and Judas utilized in all four gospels indicates John’s familiarity with one or more of the Synoptics, particularly Matthew.
Secondly, Though Peter’s position in the church as the first male to see the risen Christ was too thoroughly established to remove, I believe that John’s gospel seems designed to imply that Simon Cephas (Peter) was a less significant disciple with important character flaws.
Thirdly, I am convinced that particular negativity is given to Thomas, placing him outside the limits of the post-resurrection disciples, even to his removal from apostolic authority and the knowledge of paradise. In all occurrences of Thomas in John’s gospel, he does not understand what Jesus is saying. Instead of being the “doubting disciple”, Thomas is the disciple who is incapable of getting the point of Jesus’ ministry and action in the world.
Finally, the utilization of Philip and Andrew in several very positive situations with respect to being helpful/understanding and bring others to Jesus may well be part of an attempt on John’s part to indicated more openness to the Hellenistic culture than what he was seeing in the community about him.
FOOTNOTES
1. Bartholomew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas son of James (Luke), and the possibly connected quartet of Matthew, James son of Alpheaus, Levi son of Alpheaus (Mark), and Levi the tax collector (Luke).
2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1991., Pg. 181 NT, Notes on the Epilogue on chapter 21. Hereafter cited as NRSV.
3. NSRV Exhaustive Concordance, Thomas Nelson, 1991. Pg. 878. Hereafter cited as Exhaustive Concordance.
4. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Arndt and Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 202.
5. Exhaustive Concordance, p. 686.
6. NRSV, p. 533 Essays.
7. Exhaustive Concordance, p. 973.
8. Exhaustive Concordance, p. 68.
9. Exhaustive Concordance, p. 971, 1171.
10.A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Arndt and Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 202.
11. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Arndt and Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 852.
12. NRSV, John 6:71, 13:2, 13.26.
13. Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1278. The Thomas section of this paper uses as a basis an unpublished paper by Eleanor M. Cooley for Dr. Francis Fallon at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas in 1979 which establishes the existence of the Gospel of Thomas, or at least a formal Thomas tradition prior to the writing of John’s gospel. This has been further substantiated by Resurrection Reconsidered, Thomas and John in Controversy, Gregory J. Riley, 1995, hereafter cited as Resurrection, and the early date is reinforced by The Five Gospels, The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, by the Jesus Seminar, 1993, p. 474.
14. NRSV, John 11.16
15. See also Resurrection, p. 78-79.
16. See also Resurrection, p. 107-108.
17. Resurrection, p. 113-126 develops this passage in terms of divergent understandings of the resurrection.
18. See also Resurrection, p.l10.
19. NRSV, p. 172 NT, notes.
20. The Apocrypha and Psuedepigrepha of the Old Testament, R.H. Charles, 1913?, Scanned for the web and edited by Joshua Williams, Northwest Nazarene College, 1995. The older translation by Richard Lawrence uses “habitations” in place of “Dwelling places.”
21. Resurrection, p. 110.