the account of the discovery of the empty tomb, which again is markedly different from what we find in the other Gospels:
Now on the first [day] of the week Mary the Magdalene comes early, while it is yet dark, to the tomb, and sees that the stone had been taken from the tomb. So she runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and says to them, “They took the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where they put him. Peter and the other disciple went out therefore and came to the tomb. And the two ran together; and the other disciple ran ahead more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb, and stooping sees lying the sheets, but he didn’t go in. So Simon Peter comes following him, and entered the tomb, and he sees the sheets lying, and the kerchief, which had been on his head, not with the sheets but separate, having been wrapped up in one place. Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also entered and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the writing, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their own homes. (20:1–10)
A number of resurrection appearance stories follow: first to Mary the Magdalene (20:11–18); then to a group of disciples in their hideout (20:19–23); then, eight days later, to Thomas “the twin,” in company with the others (20:26–29). Then, after what looks like a conclusion to the narrative (20:30–31), we encounter a long resurrection narrative that occupies the entire final chapter. In this narrative we hear again of the disciple Jesus loved. The most significant sections of this narrative for our purposes are reproduced below (with summary indications of the connecting links). “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called the twin, Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. Simon Peter says to them, ‘I am going fishing.’ They say to him, ‘We’re coming with you.’ They went out and embarked on the boat; but that night they caught nothing.”
Then Jesus, incognito, gives them instructions from the shore about where to put their nets, with the result that they fill the nets. Then, “that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It’s the Lord!’ When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was naked, and threw himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat” (21:7–8).
They then have a fish fry on the beach for breakfast. There follows a long dialogue in which Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves Jesus. Each time Peter responds affirmatively and is told to tend or feed Jesus’ sheep. When Peter protests his love, Jesus talks about Peter having to be held up when he gets older, which the narrator tells us means that Peter also will be crucified. Jesus then tells Peter: “Follow me” (21:15–20).
Turning, Peter sees the disciple that Jesus loved following them, who also was the one who leaned on Jesus’ chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” Peter seeing this one says to Jesus, “Lord, and what of him?” Jesus says to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” The saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple is not to die. But Jesus didn’t say that he doesn’t die, but: “If I want him to stay until I come, what’s it to you?”
This is the disciple witnessing concerning these things and having written these things, and we know that his witness is true. (21:20–24)
The narrative ends with the notice that Jesus did many other things.
This final appearance of the disciple Jesus loved links up to the first appearance at the supper and echoes the word at the death of Jesus that he is a true witness. Here it becomes clear that the one referred to in 19:35 was probably the beloved disciple, because here the passage states explicitly that he is the faithful eyewitness whose testimony is somehow said to be basic to the text of the narrative.
I have cited these texts at such length so that the reader may see exactly the extent of the material with which we are concerned. I have also attempted to give a fairly literal rendering for the same reason. Interpretation of the texts and the consequences of a homoerotic interpretation are the subjects of the next five chapters.
1. We will refer to the author by the traditional name of John, since some name must be used and any other would be both conjectural and confusing.
2. We attend a bit more to this text when we discuss the issue of gender role nonconformity in the Jesus tradition (chapter 9).
3. Throughout I have used the IRS’ but with modifications where necessary to give a more literal sense of the Greek text.
Chapter 2
The Lover and His Beloved
While the question of the identity of the beloved disciple and his role in the text is a not uncommon feature of commentaries on the Gospel of John, little is written about the nature of the relationship between Jesus and this person. A conspiracy of silence seems to surround this question. Yet the Gospel itself places all the weight on the nature or character of the relationship between Jesus and his beloved, rather than the disciple’s name or his “function.”
The text makes clear that among so many to whom Jesus had strong personal ties, one particular disciple was Jesus’ beloved. Along with Jesus’ teaching concerning the nature of God’s love and human love, and Jesus’ demonstrating and awakening of this love, one person was simply “the disciple he loved”—the beloved one for whom Jesus was the lover. When all is said and done, the fact that the text does indicate that Jesus was in this most definite and concrete and intimate sense a lover with a beloved is itself quite remarkable, even apart from the added information that this beloved was also another male. However, this added information has served to “hide” the relationship wherever homophobic or heterosexist presuppositions have prevailed. Indeed the erotophobic presuppositions of much traditional exegesis would have made it difficult to see Jesus as a lover with a beloved even if the beloved were female. But the taboos constructed by homophobia and heterosexism have rendered a reading of the relationship between Jesus and his beloved virtually impossible.1
In this chapter, I attempt what may be called a homoerotic reading of the relationship between Jesus and his beloved. The aim of such a reading is to see what sense it makes of these texts to read them as suggestive of what we might today label a homosexual or gay relationship.
Apart from the controversial nature of such a reading, two qualifications must be observed. First, I will not suggest what sexual practice, if any, served to mediate or express this relationship. As is true for other relationships, whether same-sex or cross-sex, the data in all but pornographic texts typically does not intrude into this sphere. In this chapter, the gay reading is not meant to foreclose the question of sexual practice one way or the other. This issue will occupy us in chapter 4.
The other qualification concerns the much vexed question of the “construction of homosexuality.” The suppositions concerning homosexual relations that are present in contemporary society cannot simply be read back into other cultures or periods of history. The term “homosexual,” as adjective or noun, is only a century old. As a noun, the term generally refers to persons who are disposed to find sexual fulfillment in relations with persons of the same biological sex as themselves. Cultural and historical study has shown that the classification of persons as either homosexual or heterosexual
