[1] Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (AB; N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966), pp. 1006–7Google Scholar, where Brown writes ‘… Peter is not the special hero of the Johannine writer. The Beloved Disciple has that role; and the writer takes special interest in showing the Beloved Disciple's ‘primacy of love’, a superiority that does not exclude Peter's possessing another type of primacy’.

[2] Cullmann, O., Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953).Google Scholar

[3] Brown, R. E., Donfried, K. P. and Reumann, J., eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis and N.Y.: Augsburg Publishing House and Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 138–9Google Scholar, where the statement is made: ‘…we might say that this community has placed its apostolic figure (the Beloved Disciple) on a pedestal by showing him to be of competitive importance with Simon Peter, the most famous figure from the ministry of Jesus known to the church at large’.

[4] Cullmann, , Peter, p. 27.Google Scholar

[5] Titus, E. L., The Message of the Fourth Gospel (N.Y.: Abingdon, 1957), p. 220.Google Scholar

[6] Snyder, G. F., ‘John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition’, BR 16 (1971), pp. 5–15.Google Scholar

[7] Bacon, B. W., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (N.Y.: Moffat, Yard & Co., 1910)Google Scholar and Hoskyns, and Davey, , The Riddle of the New Testament (London: Faber and Faber, 1958).Google Scholar

[8] Snyder, ,‘John 13:16’, p. 15.Google Scholar

[9] Brown, et al. , Peter, pp. 131–41Google Scholar; Snyder, , ‘John 13:16’, p. 9.Google Scholar

[10] Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John (London: S.P.C.K., 1962), pp. 151–2.Google Scholar

[11] Brown, , John, p. 75.Google Scholar

[12] Cullmann, , Peter, p. 28.Google ScholarBrown, (John, p. 75)Google Scholar notes that a similar view was also held by Abbott, (Johannine Grammar [London: Black, 1906] para. 1901).Google Scholar See Barrett, (John, pp. 151–2) for a discussion of the issue.Google Scholar

[13] Cullmann, , Peter, p. 28.Google Scholar

[14] Brown, et al. , Peter, p. 130.Google Scholar

[15] Titus, , Message, pp. 77–8; cf. p. 215.Google Scholar

[16] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, p. 10.Google Scholar

[17] The problem of the identification of the unnamed disciple of this passage with the Beloved Disciple is further complicated by the question of the sources for this unit. Barrett, , (John, pp. 149–50)Google Scholar believes that the Evangelist knew Mark's story of the call because of other contacts with the second gospel, but thinks that he is following some divergent tradition here. The two disciples, he suggests, may come from the Q story of the mission of two of the Baptist's disciples to Jesus (Matt. 11. 2; Luke 7. 18–19). Titus, (Message, pp. 77–8) also notes the connection with this story. It seems probable to the present writer that the Fourth Evangelist may be here conflating the Synoptic stories of the call of the disciples and of the disciples of the Baptist to fit his own purposes.Google Scholar

[18] Barrett, , John, p. 249.Google Scholar

[19] Brown, et al. , Peter, p. 132.Google Scholar

[20] Brown, . John p. 302.Google Scholar

[21] Titus, , Message, p. 130.Google Scholar Cf. Barrett, , John, p. 253Google Scholar and Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

[22] Titus, , Message, p. 130.Google Scholar Snyder thinks that the intent is to taint Peter with the demonic: ‘… the rare use of son of Simon Iscariot gives one the feeling that the author is toying with our imaginations, or a redactor has redirected the charge from Peter to Judas’ (Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, p. 11).Google Scholar

[23] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

[24] Titus, , Message, p. 187.Google Scholar

[25] Maynard, A. H., The Function of Apparent Synonyms and Ambiguous Words in the Fourth Gospel (A dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School, The University of Southern California, 1950), pp. 327–30.Google Scholar It should be noted that Barrett, (John, p. 368)Google Scholar regards such an interpretation as ‘very far-fetched’ and Bultmann, (The Gospel of John [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], p. 469) calls it ‘grotesque’. The present writer is unconvinced by their arguments or by the terms by which they attempt to ridicule the position.Google Scholar

[26] Brown, , John, p. 566.Google ScholarCf. Bultmann, , John, pp. 470–1.Google Scholar

[27] Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), p. 402.Google Scholar

[28] One is tempted to wonder if the association of Peter and Judas in this passage is a further development on the part of the Evangelist of the unexpected association of Peter and Judas found in the Confession (6. 70–71).

[29] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, p. 9.Google Scholar

[30] Brown, et al. , Peter, p. 133.Google Scholar

[31] Supra, p. 533.Google Scholar

[32] Titus, , Message, p. 187.Google Scholar

[33] Broomfield, , John, Peter and the Fourth Gospel (London: S.P.C.K. 1934), pp. 40–1. Broomfield here follows T. B. Strong.Google Scholar

[34] Barrett, , John, pp. 372–3.Google Scholar

[35] Sanders, J. N. and Mastin, B. A., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Harper's New Testament Commentaries. N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 313.Google Scholar

[36] Brown, , John, p. 574.Google Scholar

[37] Kuhn, K. G., ‘The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran’ (Stendahl, K., ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament. N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 69.Google Scholar This article is also mentioned by Brown, (John, p. 574), but he rejects its conclusion.Google Scholar

[38] Sanders, and Mastin, , John, p. 313, note 1.Google Scholar

[39] Bacon, , Fourth Gospel in Research, p. 301.Google Scholar

[40] Brown, , John, p. 574.Google Scholar

[41] Bacon, , Fourth Gospel in Research, p. 313.Google Scholar Cf. Snyder, (‘John 16:13’, p. 12) who comments: ‘the Beloved Disciple stands on the side of Jesus rather than on the side of the disciples’.Google Scholar

[42] Barrett, , John, p. 377Google Scholar; cf. Sanders, and Mastin, , John, p. 318.Google Scholar

[43] Barrett, , John, p. 377.Google Scholar

[44] Ibid., p. 378.

[45] This difference is pointed out by Macgregor, G. H. C. (The Gospel of John [The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. N.Y.: Harper and Brothers, 1928], p. 284), who does not deal with its significance. It should perhaps be noted that Macgregor feels the whole passage is from the Redactor.Google Scholar

[46] Barrett, , John, p. 436.Google Scholar

[47] Brown, et al. , Peter, p. 133.Google Scholar

[48] Sanders, and Mastin, , John, p. 394.Google Scholar

[49] Barrett, , John, pp. 436–42. Quote is from p. 442.Google Scholar

[50] Broomfield, (John, Peter, p. 45) makes a good deal of this point, but interprets it as favourable. This is a position with which I must disagree.Google Scholar

[51] Lüthi, W., St. John's Gospel: An Exposition (Richmond: John Knox, 1960), p. 280.Google Scholar

[52] Brown, , John p. 814.Google Scholar

[53] Cullmann, , Peter, p. 27. The other three incidents are the prediction of the denial, at the foot of the cross, and at the tomb.Google Scholar

[54] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

[55] Titus, , Message, p. 230.Google Scholar

[56] Goguel, M., The Birth of Christianity (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1954), p. 114.Google Scholar

[57] Bacon, , Fourth Gospel in Research, p. 318.Google Scholar

[58] Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), pp. 137–8, 245.Google ScholarBrown, , John, p. 1001.Google Scholar

[59] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, p. 13.Google Scholar

[60] Maynard, , Synonyms and Ambiguous Words, p. 145;Google Scholar cf. Macgregor, , John, p. 356.Google Scholar

[61] Barrett, , John, p. 468;Google Scholar cf. Brown, (John, p. 985) who cites Barrett with apparent approval.Google Scholar

[62] Maynard, , Synonyms and Ambiguous Words, pp. 145–6.Google Scholar

[63] Colwell, E. G. and Titus, E. L., The Gospel of the Spirit: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1953), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar

[64] Howard, W. F., ‘The Gospel According to St. John’ (The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 8. N.Y.: Abingdon, 1952), p. 797.Google Scholar

[65] Macgregor, , John, p. 366Google Scholar; cf. Titus, , Message, p. 242.Google Scholar

[66] Ibid., p. 366. This sentence is also quoted with approval by Titus, , Message, p. 243.Google Scholar

[67] For a good review of contemporary scholarship on this question, see Brown, , John, pp. 1079–81.Google Scholar

[68] Sanders, and Mastin, , John, pp. 447–8.Google Scholar The quotation is taken by them from Barrett, , John, p. 484.Google Scholar

[69] Ibid., pp. 447–8; cf. Bultmann, , John, p. 709.Google Scholar

[70] This is contrary to the view expressed by members of the Roman Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, who see the continuity but not the difference. Brown, et al. , Peter, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

[71] Bultmann, . John, pp. 709 and 711.Google Scholar

[72] Barrett, , John, p. 480.Google Scholar

[73] Macgregor, , John, p. 373.Google Scholar

[74] Titus, , Message, p. 247.Google Scholar

[75] Agourides, S., ‘The Purpose of John 21’ (Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark. Daniel, B. L. and Suggs, M. J., eds., Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), p. 128.Google Scholar

[76] Ibid., p. 129.

[77] Brown, et al. , Peter, p. 146.Google Scholar

[78] Bultmann, , John, p. 713.Google Scholar

[79] Macgregor, , John. p. 374.Google Scholar

[80] Sanders, and Mastin, , John, p. 454.Google Scholar

[81] Maynard, , Synonyms and Ambiguous Words, p. 279.Google ScholarBrown, (John, pp. 1102–3) has an excellent review of the history of this argument. He rejects a distinction for the following reasons: (a) John elsewhere uses the words interchangeably; (b) There was only one verb for love in the Hebrew and Aramaic, so there could be no such distinction in a Semitic original; (c) Peter answers ‘yes’ to the question with Φιλέω when it is asked with άγαπάω, suggesting that he is unaware of a distinction. My reply to these three arguments is as follows: (a) My studies lead me to conclude that the Evangelist does use the words with respect for their precise meanings elsewhere, but since this is the Redactor, this argument is not pertinent; (b) I suspect that the Redactor wrote in Greek and doubt that he is following any traditional source here, so the lack of two words in the Semitic languages is irrelevant; (c) It is characteristic of Johannine characters to miss differentiations in meaning. In the Gospel this failure sets the stage for dialogues.Google Scholar

[82] Bacon, , Fourth Gospel in Research, p. 221. Bacon went so far as to suggest that the appendix was written in Rome. I would rather think it was written in the Johannine school to make its Gospel acceptable to Rome.Google Scholar

[83] Macgregor, , John, p. 268.Google Scholar

[84] Howard, , ‘John’, p. 446.Google Scholar

[85] Supra, p. 532.Google Scholar

[86] Snyder, , ‘John 16:13’, p. 15.Google Scholar

[87] Henshaw, T., New Testament Literature in the Light of Modern Scholarship (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1952), p. 386.Google Scholar Cf. Wilder, A. N., ‘III John’ (The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 12. N.Y.: Abingdon, 1957), pp. 311–3.Google Scholar