>Ken Durkin wrote:
>"Chapter 21 does not support this interpretation of a "contest" between
>and the BD with Peter losing out."
>Nor does the rest of the Gospel. See my book _Peter and the Beloved
>Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis_ (Sheffield: 1989) for a
>treatment of this question that makes the case that the two serve as
>complementary figures presented to address a crisis of authority in the
>Johannine community. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now to get
>into the discussion ... it looks interesting!
I recommend Kevin Quast's book highly (see my review of it in JBL nearly a
decade ago). The ideological corrective here implied is significant. Not
only do we have appeals to authority figures emerging within the Johannine
tradition, but it also did so in the Matthean (see the dialogue between
Graham Stanton and myself in the 1999 issue of the Review of Biblical
What I don't think is that because the Johannine perspective poses a
challenge to Petrine views of authority, this means the Johannine
tradition is non-apostolic. Perhaps it represents the sentiment that the
apostolate itself has been hi-jacked by proto-Ignatian structuralists, and
it seeks to restore an authentic memory of the authentic character of
discipleship. Some of this familial corrective is present in Matthew as
well as John.
I believe the most important contribution of Charlesworth's book is that
he challenges effectively the notion that the Beloved Disciple tradition
in John was disconnected from a personal source of traditional authority.
While the apparent unbelief of Thomas chafes against the belief of the BD
at the end and beginning of ch. 20 makes the particulars of his hypothesis
problematic, he is definitely on the right track, I believe.