John’s Gospel falls into two main divisions: the Book of Signs (Chapters 1-12) and the Book of Glory (Chapters 13-20) with an epilogue (Chapter 21) -and if you want, a prologue in John 1:1-18; the basis for the relationship between John and Peter is set out in the Book of Signs, which is a portrayal of Peter.  There the portrait would surprise no one with a knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels; he has a central place in the calling of the disciples and in the Christological confession os John 6:60-71; but the account we are given and the picture we get is not simply that of the Synoptics.

In John’s account, it is Andrew who gets the first calling and makes the first commitment to Jesus, but Peter’s naming and commissioning in Chapter 21 single him out for a special charge. In John 6:60-71, Peter represents those who remain faithful at a time when other followers fall away en masse, especially in Galilee. In his three-part confession, Peter models John’s understanding of what it means to become a believer and a true disciple. Not all disciples share in the eternal life, because not all remain faithful. It is also worth noting that unlike Matthew and Mark, John never identifies Peter with Satan. His faith might not be ideal, but it is exemplary; he does not stand on some pedestal above the others, but no aspersions are cast on his character or faith; he plays an integral part in the Christian community which followed Jesus.

Peter’s leadership is evident in the Book of Glory: in the revelation of the betrayer, Peter speaks for the community; it is to him that Mary reports what she found at the tomb; when he and the beloved disciple stop at the tomb, it is Peter who goes in first; when the Beloved disciples realises who is on the shore, he reports it to Peter; Peter leads the way to shore and hauls up the full, unbroken net; he is given the pastoral charge of the sheep by Jesus. It is true that in the footwashing scene he misunderstands the actions of Jesus, but even that reveals the extreme attachment he has to Jesus. In Chapter 13:36-38, where Jesus predicts Peter’s denials, we see another example of Peter representing the eager, if sometimes ignorant, commitment of the Twelve. Peter acts impulsively out of loyalty and love when he takes his sword to defend Jesus. Even the denials (John 18:15-18, 25-27) are less condemnatory than it the Synoptics.

The threefold repetition of the questions to Peter, and the mention of a coal fire link the denials with a restoration and commission in John 21:15-19. Peter’s answers do not reflect that badly on him; they focus on his action in the garden rather than on his allegiance to Jesus.  John’s account of the third denial does not have the ‘oaths and curses’ of the Synoptics, neither does Peter deny he knew Jesus.  Although Jesus insists Peter will not be able to follow him as he goes through his last hour (13:36), he calls Peter anew in John 21:19, 22.  The certainty of Peter’s love is highlighted by his language in Chapter 21; the threefold repetition shows the strength and purity of that love.

Peter’s discipleship extends to the point of Jesus’ death (John 21:18-19). His martyrdom is commended as a means of glorifying God. His arrest and death are an extension of his following Jesus; this, in short, is Peter as leader, spokesman, witness, disciple and pastor.

Now to turn to the portrayal of the Beloved Disciple, before concluding with an attempt to analyse the relationship and its significance for the Johannine community.

On my counting the figure designated ‘the Beloved Disciple’ appears seven times in the Gospel according to St John; in all but one of them he is closely associated with Peter, which suggests the Evangelist thinks their relationship important. Modern exegesis has tended to see it as one of rivalry, with the ‘Johannine community’ being contrasted favourably with the Petrine one. This has certainly been the tendency of Rudolf Bultmann (The Gospel of John, (1971)) and those influenced by him, who see in John the representative of a Gentile Christianity which is both more active and creative than Peter’s Jewish Christianity which is more passive in its reception of tradition. Peter, in this view, comes to stand for a negative strain in the Gospel that was beginning to introduce negative or objectionable understandings. Others have gone so far as to see a struggle between Spirit-filled Christianity (as represented by John) and official, ecclesiastical Christianity as represented by Peter.

The late Fr Raymond Brown went, as was his wont, even further, suggesting that the Beloved Disciple was portrayed so as to offset the dominance of the Twelve in the developing Church and to teach that ‘ecclesiastical authority is not the sole criteria for judging importance in the following of Jesus’ (Community of the Beloved Disciple (1979),191).

Centuries of dispute over the identity of the ‘Beloved Disciple’ have signally failed to satisfy scholars enough to produce a consensus, and even a scholar I admire as much as I do Richard Bauckham gets close to the old schoolboy parody that the Illiad wasn’t written by Homer, but another bloke of the same name, and you pays your money and you takes your choice. The Evangelist chose not to name him, and we’d be wise to respect that. Here, though, I want to look at this idea that there is a rivalry going on and that we should read John and Peter as types of early Christianity in conflict.

The complex and heavily symbolic nature of John’s Gospel needs no emphasising; the book is one which a narrative which operates at a number of levels, where signs and metaphors abound, and to me the idea that the portrayal of the relationship between the Beloved Disciple and Peter can be reduced to such a simplistic reading seems unlikely. Of course, the whole idea that there was a ‘Johannine’ community, is to some extent a scholarly construct, but it is not without merit, and provides us with a possible hermeneutic through which to read the relationship not as a rivalry, but as a way of correctly any supposition to that effect.

We know, from the epistles, that the Johannine community had its own crisis of authority, where not even John’s links with the Saviour were enough to persuade those who thought that Christ was not God Incarnate, otherwise. Charles Hill has countered the old view that John’s Gospel had gnostic origins by showing that whilst the Gnostics certainly (mis)used it, the orthodox were equally attached to it, which posits the idea that parts of the Johnannine community was absorbed into the Church whilst part of it went Gnostic. What I want to do in the next couple of posts is to suggest that if we read John’s Gospel around a different view of Peter and John, we may get some insight into the process.