Journal for the Study of the New Testament

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lincoln, A. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 24, No. 3, 3-26 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X0202400301

The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness

Andrew T. Lincoln

School of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Gloucestershire, Swindon Road, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ

There has been a recent revival of claims that taking Jn 21.24 seriously entails holding the Fourth Gospel to be the end product of the actual eyewitness accounting of the Beloved Disciple. After reviewing some of these claims, this article revisits aspects of the discussion. It sets the interpretation of the Beloved Disciple’s witness in the context of the Gospel’s overall treatment of seeing and testifying, reflects on the juxtaposition of metaphorical and literal language, and examines some of the main options for explaining what turns out to be a more complex phenomenon than is often allowed. It concludes that the view that the Beloved Disciple’s eyewitness is a literary device on the part of the narrator remains the most satisfactory explanation of the data and that, contrary to what has been alleged, this view need not be thought to have negative implications for issues surrounding the integrity of the Fourth Gospel’s witness.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?