PART 1
First, in the Gospel of John, chapter 1 verse 6, the author introduces a man named John. They say that this man was sent by God to v7 bear witness. This is v26 John the Baptizer. This John dies.
Second, is mentioned v35 two disciples of John the Baptizer. The first is identified as v40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter *3, using both of Peter's names as one name. Jesus names Simon v42 Cephas, and then the author includes the translation, Peter. Jesus also calls him the son of John/Jonah. This is another John, though they are distinct from John the Baptizer.
Third, v43 Jesus wants to go to Galilee so he finds Philip and asks him to follow. This is possibly the second disciple of the Baptizer as it mimics the same key structure of Andrew.
John the Baptizer is heard by two disciples, they stay with Jesus for a few hours, then they depart.
First Andrew finds his brother and takes him to Jesus.
Next Philip finds Nathanael and takes him to Jesus.
Jesus calls Simon the son of John/Jonah.
Jesus calls Nathanael a true Israelite.
I think this points to Philip being this second disciple of John the Baptizer. Both of these men have the opportunity to provide their witness testimony to these events. Peter and Nathanael also have the opportunity to give account of what they took part in.
Fourth, in chapter 2 verse 1-2, the mother of Jesus, called only v1&v3 "the mother of Jesus" twice, and v5&v12 "his mother" twice, appear in the story. This happened in v1 Cana in Galilee, not far from where Jesus had been the prior day, three days after he returned from the wilderness following his baptism. Jesus also attended the wedding with v2 his disciples. As far as the story has shown, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael might be his only disciples. Though Jesus has met and giving Simon a new name, there is no indication yet that Simon is following Jesus. We can see in the Synoptic accounts, that Jesus doesn't call Peter, Andrew, or James and John the sons of Zebedee, to follow him until later while they are fishing and after John the Baptizer had been arrested. This could place Andrew back home with Peter after the introduction to Jesus so that he might or might not have been at the wedding. The account of this is then narrowed down to v12 Jesus' mother, brothers, or Philip and Nathanael. It is important to note that, because Jesus and his disciples arrived at the wedding, v2-3 there was not enough wine. Jesus' brothers are also not named here.
Fifth is again the mention of Jesus' disciples, v17 here having remembered what was written, v14 while Jesus was at the temple. Jesus v15-16 cleanses the temple, so some of his disciples were there with him. John the Baptizer has not yet been arrested and this is in Jerusalem during the Passover. It is reasonable to expect any of the aforementioned disciples to be with him at this event, those being Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, and Peter, even if Andrew and Peter are not followers who have left their fishing business yet.
The Gospel says that v18 the Judeans questioned Jesus. These are the religious elite of the time, not the common people "Jews" as we understand them. (See v13 Ἰουδαίων genitive and v18&20 Ἰουδαῖοι nominative) Where the genitive is usually applied to the people as a whole like in the phrase King of the Jews, while the nominative is applied to a specific smaller group most of the time, and only once in the synoptic accounts, that is in Mark 7:3.
Sixth, in chapter 3 verse 1, the author introduces Nicodemus. He is a ruler of the Jews (genitive), as in the people. This is no indication that their conversation with Jesus was in private, without the company of Jesus' disciples. We see v22 that Jesus and his disciples don't leave Jerusalem until after his meeting with Nicodemus. Nicodemus isn't called a disciple but rather is spoken of v1 as having been a ruler. There is no way of knowing if Nicodemus provided this event as a witness but it's as likely from any of the disciples that were with Jesus at this time mentioned above.
v25-26 John the Baptizer and some Jews (genitive) discuss the purification and the possible conflict, v30 that John the Baptizer says is a good thing, around more people going to Jesus to be baptized. The statements from John the Baptizer, seen here, are not given a witness by name. Many candidates could exist, including anyone that was still a disciple of John the Baptizer.
Seventh account of an individual is in chapter 4. Starting in verse 7 there is a woman from Samaria that comes to v6 the well that Jesus is sitting against alone, v8 as his disciples had gone into the town. The woman v28 tells the people of the town about her encounter. She is the best witness for this event, though she isn't named. She is, however, identified as v9 a Samaritan woman v18 that had been with 5 men but had no husband. The people had also v39 believed because of her until v41-42 they had heard for themselves. Jesus' disciples v27 saw the woman that Jesus was talking to, so they would be aware of this person and that her testimony was true. If they learned from her about this event, it provides the witness through either her or the disciples that learned of it.
Jesus departs for Galilee after this, v44 seemingly after having passed through his home town as seen in the synoptic accounts. (See Matthew 4:12-13; Skipped over in Mark; Luke 4:16-30) Jesus would return to Nazareth with is disciples in Mark 6, something that appears to be a separate event. Jesus is v45 welcomed by the Galileans. Here in verse 54, Jesus will be said to have given his second sign corresponding to his arrival in Galilee from Judea.
The next few people that come into the story are v46 an unnamed official, the official's sick son, v51 the official's servants, chapter 5 v3 a multitude of people with ailments, and v5 one man at a pool who had been unable to walk for thirty-eight years "possibly his age" v6 who had been there a long time.
The official/nobleman is identified as v46-47 having come from Capernaum to Cana because he had heard of Jesus and that Jesus had arrived there from Judea. As none of Jesus' disciples are said to have gone with this man, and the man is recorded as v51 having a conversation with his servants on his way home, then this event can only be traced through the official himself, even if that means it makes it to the author by a party between them. This wouldn't be unusual if the author is from Capernaum or if the testimony made it from the official to any resident or worker in Capernaum, like Levi, Peter, Andrew, James, or John.
The man at the pool was v10-11 telling the Judeans (nominative) about being healed though v13 he didn't know who it was that healed him until v14 they met again at the temple. By that time, his testimony was given to a few people and Jesus would have met him again with his disciples present. The man is not named but there are plenty that could have attested to these events.
In chapter 6, the author glosses over Jesus calling the fisherman from their boats. Verse 1-2 simply follows Jesus having told off the Judeans that questioned him for healing on the Sabbath, to now making his way to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, that the author makes note is the Sea of Tiberias. In the synoptic accounts (See Mark 1:16-45, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6-1-29; Matthew 4:12-25, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14:1-12; Luke 4:31, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:1-9) this is where Jesus preaches from Peter's boat, tells them to toss their nets, then calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow him as fishers of men. After this Jesus calls Levi, meanwhile healing many others around the area, teaches many things, Jesus calls all 12 of his closest disciples to be his Apostles and sends them out, the Apostles report back, then makes his way to the other side of the sea (that is to say it could be from Jerusalem again to the "other side" or North side of the sea.). A lot of time must have passed here as the author says that these happened after the Passover and another Passover is about to happen, making it nearly a year.
From this point on, all of the 12 will be with Jesus. Everything prior to this can be traced to some witness or witnesses, and that leaves us with either the author, so far, being among them or getting statements from them later.
PART 2
Around the events of the feeding of the 5000, Jesus sits with his disciples. Jesus asks Philip, who was from the area "the North side of the Sea of Galilee" where they can buy bread for the crowd that followed them. The author then makes note that Andrew, Simon Peter's brother "again using the name Simon Peter as if it is a single name" directs Jesus' attention to a boy with food. The boy isn't named but also doesn't appear to be part of their traveling company. It is possible that the boy is known to Andrew and thus why he says "a little boy is here" and is aware that the boy has food with him.
Next is an event in the boat, presumably with just the 12, where they attempt to row against the wind near the shore to Capernaum. After they see Jesus walking on the water toward them, they welcome him onto the boat and the boat reaches its destination thereafter. Witness to this, while skipping what Jesus was doing before joining them, is limited to the ones on the boat, even being a brief event, though Matthew has more to say about it. Following that is a statement about the people knowing that the disciples left in a single boat, that Jesus was not with them, but Jesus wasn't around so they went in their own boats to find him, following the disciples. This doesn't need any direct witness, not giving any quotes or names. Only when they find Jesus and the disciples do we see what the people said. This might help narrow the witness of these events.
After Jesus tells them that he is the bread of life, the author records that the Judeans (nominate) were grumbling about Jesus. The crowd was not, in this chapter, called the Jews so we can assume that these again fit with the authors distinction between the religious elite and the people. *1
It would appear that Jesus had, at some point, gone into the synagogue to teach, where he would talk about the bread of life, in Capernaum. Though any account where the pool of witnesses would be broader doesn't explain the shorter pool seen in other places. After many of Jesus' disciples hear his teaching on this, they turn away and stop following him. This suggest 2 things; That many following him were disciples but he kept only the 12 close to him as he traveled, and that again the author should be considered among the 12. The very next quote we see is from "Simon Peter" as the author calls them as he says "we have believed" speaking for the 12. The chapter ends with naming Judas as "...one of you is a devil." the one that was going to betray him.
Chapter 7 opens with a quote from Jesus' brothers telling him to go to Judea to show himself to the world, as Jesus had now been avoiding Judea. Jesus goes there anyway but in secret. It's not until Jesus starts teaching at the temple that anyone from outside of the 12 would have known what he was doing.
A little later, the author makes note that Jesus spoke about the Spirit that will be given after Jesus is glorified, showing that they know about the statements of Jesus regarding his ascension after the resurrection. Not only that they know about them but they understood how they were connected. This helps tie the author even closer to Jesus.
In verses 45-52, there is a conversation that happens outside of the witness of the 12 but within the witness of Nicodemus, named in verse 50. This could give credit to the idea that Nicodemus was involved in relaying the conversation that he had with Jesus, if they spoke without any of Jesus' disciples present.
Jesus comes back to teach a few more lessons and is questioned again by the Judeans. After this, Jesus passes by a blind man and his disciples ask him about the man. Jesus gives the man sight and his neighbors are aware of this. They question him and then bring him to the Pharisees. These people are thus the witnesses to the beginning of chapter 9 concerning the blind man.
The author has mentioned the Passover, a Festival that follows it, another Passover, the Feast of Booths, the final day of that feast, and now, in chapter 10 will talk about the Feast of Dedication, in winter. The author shows knowledge of significant events, feasts, and teachings of Jesus at these times as well as where Jesus was going and what he was doing when he was not in public. They even know that, after the Judeans were ready to stone him for claiming to be God, he went to where John was Baptizing at first.
Lazarus, having died, in chapter 11, would not be aware of many of the prior events nor what was happening while he was dead. Nothing is taken from Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters, outside of Jesus and the disciples arriving. Jesus hears about the illness two days before Lazarus dies and arrives 4 days after. This would have given a lot of time for the author to record what had been going on at their home but they are silent about it. Instead, the author focuses on what happens around Jesus and the 12. This brings us even closer to the author of this Gospel to be among them.
Right after Lazarus is raised, the people that came with Mary to see it went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. They provide the witness to what the Pharisees said in response here in verses 45-53. They also provide knowledge of who the High Priest was at the time and the author tells us that Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die because he was said priest. Jesus retreats with his disciples to Ephraim, probably to be in a place that he would not be found, and he stays there with his disciples, the only ones that would have known where he had gone, and he stays there 4-5 months. The author tells us that there was an order to report where Jesus was so that he could be arrested and that people were still looking for him around the Passover in Jerusalem.
A large crowd learns that Jesus has returned to the house of Lazarus in chapter 12 at Bethany, six days before the Passover, some of the same people that gave the report about Jesus could be among them, again providing witness to the plot in verse 10. The author even tells us v17 that they are witnesses.
The author knows that at the time, v16 the disciples didn't understand what was happening but later, after Jesus was glorified, they remembered that it was written. It's reasonable to think that only one of the disciples would know this and be willing to share it so this information would most likely come directly from one of them.
Starting at verse 20, the author tells us that Philip is approached by Greeks that want to see Jesus and Philip has to tell Andrew about this. This suggests that Andrew was not around to hear the group talk to Philip but it doesn't tell us that Philip was alone. If Philip wasn't the one to provide testimony of this, then he would have to be accompanied by someone, yet that person wasn't Andrew. I would guess, that if Andrew was the author, he wouldn't need to provide the event that brought Philip to him but rather include the moment that Philip comes to him. Either Philip relayed the event or it was witnessed by another one of the 12 that went with him to Andrew before they go to Jesus. If Philip is the author, then it equally doesn't make sense for him to mention going to Andrew before going to Jesus. This looks like it was recorded by someone who witnessed both events and I would be satisfied with ruling out both Andrew and Philip as the author by this point. Thought it is interesting to note that these two are mentioned by name together as I put forward before that they were the two disciples of John the Baptizer.
Jesus hides himself from the crowd v36b after talking about his death, then Jesus v44 cries out more. This later speech could only have been witnessed by the 12, assuming this happened post withdraw. The remaining possibilities for the author are few, provided that the author is recording events involving others that they have seen but have not yet been a participant in or provided any statements of their own. This could include Levi, James son of Zebedee, and John son of Zebedee but we only get this information, so far, from Mark and Luke.
PART 3
From chapter 13 and on, the author, being one to follow a strict and close timeline of events, except for the large gaps of time between the events they cover, brings us close to the Passover. It's so close to the Passover that it's the hour before they eat. The author makes a distinction here v1 with it being before the Feast of the Passover, that being the Passover week that takes place starting in the daylight hours of Nissan 15 *2. Jesus washes the feat of his close 12, though it just says disciples, it focuses on Peter to Judas as contrasts.
Coming to verses 12 and on, we see an unusual shift and inclusion of quotes that draw on something not included in the Synoptic accounts, and the inclusion of one that would later identify themselves as the author but not by name. They author uses the designation v23 the one whom Jesus loved. We won't yet see them making the claim of being the author but this is who we must pay close attention to in order to identify them.
They are among the 12, having had their feat washed, v25 they are reclining at Jesus' chest. Jesus is sitting in the lower ranking positions at the table. Not only are all of them leaning on their left sides to eat with their right hands, leaving the unnamed disciple to be at Jesus' right hand "the position at the end of the table" but this also places Jesus near the door and water basin for washing their feet. For Judas to dip his bread in the same bowl as Jesus, he would have to be within reach of that position, within reach of Jesus to be given bread, and close to the door to leave early. Peter then, not telling the disciple to ask Jesus because he was unable to do so himself but instead doing so because this disciple could get the information without the betrayer knowing, would be on the other end of the table in the high rank positions and possibly the highest spot, the last spot, having had his feet washed last before Jesus returns to his position. After all, an argument broke out about who was greatest while at this supper and Jesus says that he is among them as a servant.
Alternatively, Jesus is in the high rank position (the other side of the door, sitting between two others), Peter is in the lowest position (where he should have been washing their feet, the end of the table. He feet could be washed last if you first washed the highest rank side.), the disciple whom Jesus loved is at the other end of the table (at Jesus' right hand and the seat for a trusted friend), leaving Judas at Jesus' left hand (where the guest of honor sits). Either way, we're not here to crack this case but rather the case of this unnamed disciple.
Being "unnamed" can mean that it's not Peter, though we can already see that, not Judas, as we should know, not Philip or Andrew, as there is no reason not to name them here, and still one of the remaining among the 12. Though, there is also the prior factors that should be considered that might narrow that down to Levi, James, or John. If the alternative positions are correct, then it would also follow from the speech in Luke 22, that this disciple is the youngest among them. Since Levi, who I believe is James son of Aplaeus, was the tax collector that hosted a meal for Jesus and others, I don't think it can be Levi. He would probably be a bit older than most of the others *4. James son of Zebedee also dies too early to have been the author being the first martyrdom among them. That brings us down to John son of Zebedee. But all of this relies on the path I'm following being reliable so far.
In chapter 14, Thomas v5 is named for the second time. Judas (Not the Iscariot) is named in verse 22. A servant of the High Priest named Malchus has his ear cut by Peter in chapter 18. The author states that they first lead Jesus to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. None of these are candidates as far as I can tell.
PART 4
Here in chapter 18, at Jesus' arrest, in verse 15, we have what can only be described as a point of contention. It says that Peter followed Jesus "no problem there" and so did another disciple. This other disciple is not called the one whom Jesus loved. Instead, we are left wondering why this disciple isn't named at all. It's not until later that we might have enough information to even speculate further about this person. Without the tag "whom Jesus loved" we can't, and shouldn't, assume yet that this is the author as they will self identify later. What we do know v15 is that this disciple was known to the high priest and was able to walk right into the courtyard with Jesus but Peter v16 couldn't. We should also remember that Judas v3 procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, so this disciple could be among this group. It would be easy to explain how they knew were known to the high priest and were able to walk right in if they were part of the group that, in the Synoptic accounts, are part of Caiaphas' court. Though it seems that they are known to Annas as we'll see later.
The other disciple, known as v16 "who was known to the high priests", speaks to the girl who keeps the gate and brings Peter in. These events have three witnesses, none of them need to be John son of Zebedee as we have seen Peter being able to provide testimony about his other events but also this other disciple could be the one to relay the story without needing to be son of Zebedee too.
This is where we get to the trial inside where the author records more than the Synoptic accounts. This, even though Peter has been brought in closer, should be considered to come from this other disciple instead. Mark doesn't record it and if that is an account from Peter, there is no reason for such a thing to exist here unless it doesn't come from Peter. Peter is busy, after all, with being questioned and suspected by the others warming themselves around the fire. This takes place in the court of Annas who binds Jesus and sends him to Caiaphas. So the disciple should be one known by the high priest Annas.
The author skips over what is in Mark where Jesus is before Caiaphas and goes to Jesus being sent to the governor's headquarters. I believe there is also a moment in Luke where Jesus is supposed to be sent to Herod but then sent back to Pilate. If the witness is still the same disciple known to Annas, then it makes sense that this detail is rare as neither they nor Peter would have been on that trip, though there might be a record of it that Luke could have found. Pilate calls Jesus into his headquarters to question him. Because this is an official inquiry, it should have been recorded but it's inclusion on that grounds bring into question the exclusion of Herod's.
We don't see the disciple whom Jesus loved again until chapter 19 verse 26, where the author records those standing by the cross where Jesus was being crucified. Here is where Jesus gives his mother v27 to this disciple as his own mother. We know Jesus' mother's name is Mary but there is also a Mary Magdalene and a Mary the wife of Clopas at the cross too. Too many Marys. In Acts 12, there is a Mary in Jerusalem that is identified as the mother of John who is called Mark. Peter goes to her house after being freed from prison following the death of James son of Zebedee and I believe that this Mary is Peter's wife. Peter calls Mark his own son and this is Mark's mother. Peter is said to have a mother-in-law very early in the Synoptic accounts so he had been married this whole time but his wife is otherwise not named.
The author gives account of v29 the hyssop branch and sour wine as well as v34 the soldiers piercing Jesus' side, showing a direct witness account not included elsewhere. Then the author says v35 that the one that saw these things knows they are true and that he "is telling" the truth so that you (the reader) may also believe. This shows that the author is the one that is the witness, they are a he, and it is easy for us to connect this to the disciple whom Jesus loved, who is the latter care taker of Jesus' mother.
As we come to verse 38, this is what I think ties us to who the earlier unnamed disciple is, the one known to the high priest. Joseph of Arimathea is introduced as being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly. He has access to Pilate and he is connected to Nicodemus who was also part of Caiaphas' court. This author tells us that Joseph was a secret disciple but Luke adds that he didn't consent to condemning Jesus in the court. With all four Gospel accounts mentioning this person, it makes it very likely that they all were able to use him as a witness to the events for which the others were not present. Each includes the detail of him being part of taking Jesus' body for burial. If his statements were included, he was close to Nicodemus, he was a secret disciple, and he was part of the talks around the religious elite, we have all that we need to explain these things concerning what took place outside of the witness of the 12 here.
The author tells us, in chapter 20, that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus but when she saw that the tomb was empty she ran to tell Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved "that we suspect as the author". They first call them v2 the other disciple, then include the tag, after this v3 they don't include the tab but there is no one else that the other disciple can be here. The other disciple v4 outruns Peter but doesn't v5 go in the tomb yet, waiting until v8 after Peter. Because they ran there based on the testimony of Mary who said v2 "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb..." v8 this is what John believed as v9 they didn't understand that he had been raised.
The extended account of Mary after she had returned to the tomb to weep is a redemption of her first account of not believing that Jesus was raised as they had been told in the Synoptic accounts. Because the author or disciple whom Jesus loved, had gone away sad, post hearing from Mary about Jesus being gone, it makes sense that he would include this section about her redemption.
Thomas, the twin, v24 is mentioned for the third time, having not been with the others in the locked room that Jesus entered. It's not until v26 8 days later that Thomas gets to see Jesus risen for the first time.
The author states that Jesus did more things than what they wrote but what they wrote is for the reader to believe and have life.
In the last chapter, chapter 21, the author starts by saying that the disciples were gathers again by the Sea of Tiberias. They list the key players in what is to follow; Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, Sons of Zebedee, and two others not named. Peter says that he is going fishing and these go with him. Andrew is a likely candidate though it is strange that he isn't named, and the other would be Philip who would be closely tied to this group but again, odd that they wouldn't be named. If it wasn't Philip and Andrew, then the other candidates are among any disciples that author has yet to name. This could include Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot. The reason it might be more likely to be Andrew and Philip is because they are from the same area as the rest of the group. It's hard to say but also not important at this point. Who is there is John son of Zebedee.
The disciple whom Jesus loved v7 is there among this group and they speak directly to Peter. The author notes the v11 actions of Peter, the v14 3rd visit of Jesus post resurrection, and v15-17 Peter's redemption for his 3 denials of Jesus.
Peter v20 sees, from those that went fishing with him, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also had leaned on Jesus at supper. Peter asks about him v23 but Jesus tells Peter that his fate doesn't matter to Peter.
In the remaining verses, the author says that they are that disciple that Peter asked about, that they are the one writing these things, and there is a curious statement "we know that his testimony is true." here too. So then when we look closer at verse 24, we see "This is the disciple" as in the one writing these specific words is pointing to this person; "who is bearing witness" in conjunction with "and who has written these things" is to say that what he has written is is testimony as he has witnessed them; "we know that his testimony is true." to say that after having read this, it accomplished its goal as providing what is needed to believe in Jesus and the one writing these specific words, and the reader, can attest to that.
I see no better candidate than John son of Zebedee who was present for what is needed to be from the author, a fisherman, and was sent to Patmos, later returned to Ephesus, having been the caretaker of Mary the mother of Jesus who also lived there the last days of her life. Be it that he was released in the early 80, having actually been imprisoned by Nero (Domitius) but forgotten during the turmoil that followed the Emperor's death, or imprisoned by Domitian and released in the late 90s, it is said that he returned to Ephesus. They would have moved there after departing from Jerusalem around 45 AD. Mary could have passed away 9 years after having moved there, around 54 AD at the beginning of Nero's reign.
Any further work is for another time and another subject. It would also require me to start including massive citations that I don't have because I don't have access to the material that I need.
*1 The author does not seem to include themselves as being among the Judeans by repeatedly bringing to our attention their views of Jesus being dissimilar to the author's own or that of the people. Something that will come up many more times.
*2 The daylight hours of Nisan 14 are used to prepare the lamb for the Passover Seder meal that is eaten when the sun sets and Nisan 15 begins. Later on the 15th, when the sun has risen again, the Passover Week "The Festival" begins. For the author, this is important as they will talk more about events that happen on that day rather than the events of the Seder as other authors have done.
*3 Cephas (the equivalent Greek [kēphas] of the Aramaic [kepha’]) Peter (from the Greek [petros] meaning
"rock"), with Peter not being used by Greeks and Cephas not being used
by the Jews. The name of his father John/Jonah coming from John 1:42 and Matthew 16:17. Matthew uses the Greek bariōna for bar yôḥānā’, the Aramaized form of yôḥānān "John". -From the Sentinel Commentary on Mark paraphrased.
*4 I believe that James the Younger is the same James that is called the son of Mary, the same Mary that is Jesus' mother, making James the younger brother of Jesus but not one of the 12. Mark says as much in two places 6:3 & 15:40, and later in Acts, there is a James called Jesus' brother. In Acts 12, it opens with James the brother of John 'that being Zebedee' being killed and then Peter being arrested. When Peter is free, the says to inform James and the other brothers. Clearly not son of Zebedee. In Acts 15 there is a James with no other identifier that is part of the Jerusalem assembly, the same James that Paul goes back to in Acts 21. In Galatians 1, Paul says that he spoke directly to James, the Lord's brother in a visit to Jerusalem, and he says that this James is a key member with Peter and John. James son of Alphaeus is a minor figure but after the death of James son of Zebedee, this brother of Jesus becomes a major figure.
