"The Johns and the Johannine literature is confusing."
The Wikipedia article on John the Presbyter says that "Before Eusebius there exists no statement about a second John in Asia." I haven't checked these sources yet but, if they pan out, then this would be another instance of Eusebius being the first to mention something.
"The view expounded by Eusebius has not remained uncontested. The Catholic Encyclopedia of the early 1900s, for instance, stated that the distinction "has no historical basis." To support this view, it related four main arguments:
* The testimony of Eusebius is disputed, as his statement that Papias "was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles" is contradicted by a passage in Eusebius' Chronicle which expressly calls the Apostle John the teacher of Papias.
* Eusebius' interpretation might derive from his opposition to Chiliasm and the Book of Revelation. Distinguishing between two persons called John, Eusebius could downgrade that book as the work of the Presbyter instead of the Apostle and also undermine Papias' reputation as a pupil of an Apostle.
* In the fragment, Papias uses the same words - presbyter (or elder) and disciples of the Lord – both in reference to the Apostles and to the second John. The double occurrence of John is explained by Papias' "peculiar relationship" to John, from which he had learned some things indirectly and others directly.
* Before Eusebius there exists no statement about a second John in Asia. Especially noteworthy in this context is Irenaeus of Lyons, himself a pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna. In his book Adversus Haereses, which survives in a Latin version, Irenaeus mentions "Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp" (Book V, chapter 33), without indicating that this was another John than "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast [and] did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia" (Book III, chapter 1)."
And that:
"In his "Letter to Florinus", which survives as a fragment, Irenaeus speaks of "Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life" and of John as "that blessed and apostolical presbyter".
I think there is so much unclear - a lot of what we hear comes through Eusebius, and it's interesting that that wikipedia page does not mention Dionysius's alleged views about different Johns (though Dionysius probably did not use the term 'the Presbyter')
and
Distinction
The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, through whose quotation the above fragment survives, was the first to unequivocally distinguish a Presbyter John from the Apostle John. Accordingly he introduced the quotation with the words:
Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words.[1]
It looks like Dionysius was only referring to the author of Revelation being a different John than the author of the Gospel of John the Letters of John, not that Papias' Presbyter John was different from the author of the latter two.
"Dionysius felt sure that the man named John who wrote it was not the same John who wrote the Gospel of John. Here were his reasons. The author of the Gospel (and letter) of John, nowhere gave his name, but the author of Revelation did, in several places. John was such a common name that the author of Revelation didn’t have to be the same person. The Gospel of John and the Letter of John had similar ideas and expressed them in similar words. Dionysius made quite a long list of these, and said they show that the Gospel and the letter had the same author. But he found no such agreement with the Book Revelation. Finally there was the matter of style. The Gospel and letter were written in faultless Greek and showed great literary skill. But Dionysius observed that in Revelation the use of Greek was not accurate, but the author employed barbarous idioms and in some places committed downright solecisms. Dionysius didn’t mean this as an insult: he agreed that the author had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy. He only meant to establish authorship, and the barbarisms and solecisms were an important clue."
John2 wrote:It looks like Dionysius was only referring to the author of Revelation being a different John than the author of the Gospel of John the Letters of John, not that Papias' Presbyter John was different from the author of the latter two.
John the Presbyter has also been identified with the seer of the Book of Revelation by such authors as Eusebius in his Church History (Book III, 39) and Jerome (De Viris Illustribus ('On Illustrious Men') Chapters 9 & 18).
Revelation 1:9 says that the author wrote the book of Revelation on Patmos: "I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation... was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
Did you mean "the author of Revelation being a different John than the author of the Gospel of John and the Letters of John" ??
or "the author of Revelation being a different John than the author of the Gospel of John or the Letters of John" ??
or something different?
Note -
It's interesting that the author of the Muratorian Fragment thought or assumed that the author of the Gospel of John was the same as the author of the First Epistle of John: in the middle of discussing the Gospel of John he says
'what marvel then is it that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled that have we written".' (1 John 1:1)
It is not clear whether the other epistle in question is 2 John or 3 John. Another indication that the author identified the Gospel writer John with two epistles bearing John's name is that, when he specifically addresses the epistles of John, he writes
"the Epistle of Jude indeed, and the two belonging to the above mentioned John."
In other words, he thinks that these letters were written by the John whom he has already discussed, namely John the gospel writer.
The author of the Muratorian Fragment also refers to the author of the 'Apocalypse of John' (Revelation) as "the predecessor" of Paul, who, he assumes, wrote to seven churches (Rev 2–3) before Paul wrote to seven churches.
I meant the Gospel of John "and" the Letters of John.
Anyway, so it still looks like Eusbius is the first to posit the idea that Papias' presbyter John was not the author of the Gospel of John. That he thought presbyter John may have authored Revelation instead (or that Dionysius thought the author of the Gospel and Letters of John was different than the author of Revelation) is another matter. So in other words, as the Wikipedia article on presbyter John puts it, "Before Eusebius there exists no statement about a second John in Asia."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
"The commonalities and differences between the Johannine community and the author of the Ascension of Isaiah may suggest that they were in direct contact with on another at points in their history ... The traditions of behind Ascension of Isaiah ..may have been forged in connection with the views behind the Gospel of John, but developed indifferent directions. (pp.336-7)
An encyclopedic study came up with eight Johns in the NT. From Ronald Brownrigg, Who's Who in the New Testament, 1971:
1. John the Baptist, explained at length conventionally.
2.John the son of Zebedee. Not slavishly "orthodox", states, "John may have been one of the unnamed disciples of John the Baptist who, together with Andrew and Peter. later became disciples of Jesus." That's wrong, because the second disciple was Phillip. Focuses properly more on the Synoptics. Incorrectly identifies him as "the disciple known to the High Priest" in John 18:15-16 (the usual reason scholars give for NOT allowing John to be the author of GJohn).
May not be the Beloved Disciple, but allows he may be John 3rd or John 4th
3. John the Beloved Disciple. Acknowledges there is not proof he was named John. Does not identify him with the disciple known to the High Priest. (Perhaps Brownrigg sub-contracted "John" with associates or listened to editorial advice?)
4. John the Evangelist. Does not study the possible authors, but treats as if a John wrote the whole book. Studies the book at length, not the man.
5. John the Elder.The similarity of styles with the Epistles of John may mean said Elder wrote the Gospel as well. "Within the last thirty years [@1971]...this assumption of the traditional view has been strongly criticized..." The relationship with all NTZ literature is studied for who this John was.
6. John the father of Peter.
7. John, relative of Annas.
8 John Mark, the Evangelist. "See 'Mark' " wherein "young Mark heard the knocking at the door and slipped out of bed to go and warn Jesus at Gethsemane" as "Some have suggested that he was the 'young man' who fled naked from the Garden of Gethsemane at the time of Jesus's arrest."
9. John the Divine. All about Patmos and Ephesus. "...remarkably little certainty of authorship." of Revelation.
I still say that the culture of early Palestine was dominated by John Hyrcanus. In a manner paralleled by the Samaritan interest in Moses, those forcibly converted by John expected him to come back. Note that Agrippa II is identified as 'Jannai' (= John Hyrcanus) in the rabbinic literature https://books.google.com/books?id=exBKK ... ai&f=false
I should note that there is no explicit evidence for the fact that those converted by John expected him to come back (= ta'eb). I think it is a reasonable supposition from the available evidence.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Not that anyone is interested in my speculation based on a failed first attempt published many years ago. But the oldest bit of Christian 'archaeology' is likely that statue of Berenice and some guy in Paneas
Before he died John Wilson who conducted archaeological digs there noted that the location of Eusebius's statue was on the front lawn of Agrippa's palace (I can send the picture). My guess is that Christianity was developed for the descendants of those forcibly converted proselytes made by John a century and a half earlier. Jesus is likely a development of Esmoun the local 'healing Savior' divinity in the area around the statue at Paneas. In twenty years I haven't figured out much beyond that.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John the Presbyter says that "Before Eusebius there exists no statement about a second John in Asia." I haven't checked these sources yet but, if they pan out, then this would be another instance of Eusebius being the first to mention something.
