I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?

Some consider Jesus a new Joseph. See [this article](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/joseph-type-foreshadow-jesus/) as an example. According to the answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89116/is-the-practice-of-seeking-the-intercession-of-rachel-admonished-in-the-new-test) , Dr. Brant Pitre considers the Beloved Disciple a new Benjamin. This consideration explains the Beloved Disciple's moniker, for, if Jesus is a new Joseph, and Joseph especially loved Benjamin, then a new Benjamin would be especially loved by Jesus. It also explains the adoption of Mary by the Beloved Disciple which, in the original Greek, reads more like an adoption than an assignment of a caretaker. >The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. (Genesis 46:19) >After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (John 19:27) [This article](https://orthochristian.com/135233.html) discusses the same claim, but it also credits Dr. Brant Pitre with the claim itself. Who else has spoken or written that the Beloved Disciple is a new Benjamin?

I am not, here, inquiring about who the elect are or about how they are elected. There have been other questions about that and it seems to me there is no agreement on those matters. But I am interested in *the characteristics of the elect* as someone has just asked me how anyone would know if they are one of what the bible calls 'God's elect'. Jesus gives us some information about that : >And shall not God avenge his own elect, **which cry day and night unto him**, though he bear long with them? [Luke 18:7 KJV] It seems that the elect cannot forbear from crying unto God in prayer. Not only can they not forbear for a twenty four hour period, they seem unable to last for even twelve hours without praying to Him. Paul adds some more information about them : >Put on therefore, as the elect of God, **holy and beloved**, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; [Colossians 3:12 KJV] Paul addresses the elect as 'holy and beloved'. He said of himself 'The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me' so he, himself, knew he was loved by the Lord. So did John, calling himself 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. And they are 'holy'. Not only so, they are willing to have the apostle tell them to be even more so, with bowels of mercies, kindness, humility of mind, meekness and longsuffering : all characteristics displayed in regard to their fellow men. Not a matter of doing religious works to earn a reward from Deity, I notice. And Paul gives more information : >Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, **according to the faith of God's elect**, [Titus 1:1 KJV] ---------------------------------------------------- So is it the case that if someone is of these characteristics (prayerful, holy, beloved and believing) then they may be called 'one of God's elect'. And is this how Paul was able, himself, to discern that some were, indeed, of God's elect, such as those who received his preaching. And John, too, who calls someone 'the elect lady'. Are these the characteristics which gave good reason for some to be singled out and addressed in that especial way as 'God's elect' ? What other characteristics could be added to my brief research ? ------------------------------------------------------------------ This question is not scoped on the basis of a divide in doctrine. It is not aimed at one party or another. I am simply asking about characteristics and application. But I am addressing Protestant Trinitarians, for the sake of simplicity and brevity.

John the Evangelist occasionally refers to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (Jn 12:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20). (Interestingly, no other evangelist makes such a reference.) Is it possible that Jesus had a special consideration for John because of that status? What is the Catholic view of it?

John refers to himself, on at least four occasions, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? (John 13:23 , 19:26 , 21:7 & 21:20 ). Why is this? It seems a bit arrogant, especially as Jesus loved the other disciples as well.