Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

As I consider this, my first thought is there's "no way" that the author of the gospel of John is the disciple John (the son of Zebedee), or the pillar John, or the author of 1 (and 2 and 3) John, since it strikes me as being the least "Jewish" gospel, but I could stand to take a closer look at it. The Wikipedia page says:

The Gospel of John, the three Johannine epistles, and the Book of Revelation, exhibit marked similarities, although more so between the gospel and the epistles (especially the gospel and 1 John) than between those and Revelation. Most scholars therefore treat the five as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship


Hm, hm, hm.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

Argh, I'm lost again. I need Ben's help. Here is another excerpt from his thread "Irenaus and John, the Disciple of the Lord":
At any rate, notice that John of Zebedee is called both a fellow apostle and a disciple, just like the figure whose various labels and traits we have been tracing. Irenaeus has once again made no effort to distinguish between two men named John. And that is the overwhelming sense of things that I get from Irenaeus, to be sure: as I am reading his words, I never get the impression that he is aware of two men named John who fill similar roles. He knows that John the Baptist is a separate person, but mentioning his baptizing or a few of the gospel verses in which he plays a part is more than sufficient to keep his identity separate. Likewise, the terms "apostle" and "disciple of the Lord" appear to me to be perfectly suited, and aptly used by Irenaeus, to keep his main John separate from John the Baptist. But no such effort is discernible in keeping John the disciple and apostle separate from John the disciple and apostle and elder — unless the elder John can be thought of as one of the otherwise anonymous elders to whom Irenaeus not infrequently refers ...

To recap:

1.Irenaeus never takes pains to distinguish John the apostle from John the disciple.
2.Irenaeus never calls John an elder; to the contrary, the elders are those who followed him and the other apostles.
3.Ireneaus refers to the son of Zebedee using the same basic terms (coapostle and disciple) that he uses for his favorite John.

I really think, pending further information, that Irenaeus was thinking of only one John the disciple. Papias distinguished between two Johns (one in the first list and the other, called "the elder," in the second), but Irenaeus does not seem to have followed suit.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3206
Hm.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

One last note for me to think about.

EH 3.39.4-7:
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
Are there really two Johns in Papias? If I recall correctly, Ben made another thread that discusses something like this -or at least the meaning of "the disciples of the Lord" in section 4, and I want to take another look at it.

Here it is: http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3226
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:36 pmAre there really two Johns in Papias?
In my best judgment, yes, very probably.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:47 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:36 pmAre there really two Johns in Papias?
In my best judgment, yes, very probably.
Let's look at EH. 3.39.5-6 in this light then.
5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.
But does Papias himself ever equate this "other John" with the John that Polycrates says wore a sacerdotal plate and died in Ephesus (I can't think of anything offhand)? If not, then perhaps his first John could be John the son of Zebedee (and perhaps also the pillar John), and this is the John that Polycrates says lived in Asia and wore a sacerdotal plate, and his second John could be as otherwise unknown as Aristion.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:12 pmBut does Papias himself ever equate this "other John" with the John that Polycrates says wore a sacerdotal plate and died in Ephesus (I can't think of anything offhand)?
No. Only Polycrates among all of our sources even mentions the sacerdotal plate, and its meaning is not immediately clear.
If not, then perhaps his first John could be John the son of Zebedee (and perhaps also the pillar John), and this is the John that Polycrates says lived in Asia and wore a sacerdotal plate, and his second John could be as otherwise unknown as Aristion.
Polycrates' John "who wore the sacerdotal plate" is also the "beloved disciple." We are back to the question: if there are two Johns, then are they both disciples?

My own tentative stance on all of this is that Papias mentioned two Johns: one was the disciple known from the gospels, the other an authority figure, an older contemporary of Papias who was known as "the elder." It is this "elder" who is meant in 2 & 3 John. The second "disciples of the Lord" phrase in Eusebius' quotation is a gloss intended to make clear to later generations that there was only one John, since practically everybody after Papias was keen to believe that the John from which Papias gleaned his information and who lived so long in Asia Minor was none other than the apostle of the Lord. Both Polycrates and Irenaeus conflate John the elder with John the apostle and son of Zebedee. Eusebius deconflates them, as it were, but only because he needs a patsy to pin the Apocalypse on; he is still certain that John of Zebedee was responsible for the gospel and for the epistle (1 John only; he is unsure about 2 & 3 John).

For my money, John the elder never was a disciple. The "beloved disciple," anonymous in the fourth gospel, was never originally imagined to be named John; that was a later idea, again with the intent of making direct apostolic influence last longer into early century II. Overall, what the early church wanted to be the case is less likely than that Papias and the rest of the church folks in Asia Minor were getting their information from an individual who had no direct connections to Jesus.

The matter of which John was also the pillar in Galatians 2 is completely open for me. I wish I knew. It could be some figure later ensconced in the gospels as John the son of Zebedee; or it could be John the elder at a much younger age, who later moved to Asia Minor. Or he could be someone else altogether. I am not sure.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote (in my citation above):
1.Irenaeus never takes pains to distinguish John the apostle from John the disciple.
2.Irenaeus never calls John an elder; to the contrary, the elders are those who followed him and the other apostles.
3.Ireneaus refers to the son of Zebedee using the same basic terms (coapostle and disciple) that he uses for his favorite John.

I really think, pending further information, that Irenaeus was thinking of only one John the disciple. Papias distinguished between two Johns (one in the first list and the other, called "the elder," in the second), but Irenaeus does not seem to have followed suit.
This would make sense if Papias did not equate his second John with the disciple (and possibly pillar) John. Perhaps we could even forget about this second John as being anything other than what Aristion was (even if the later is not likewise called an "elder"), an otherwise unknown Christian that he heard traditions from, like Eusebius puts it in EH 3.39.7:
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings.


Perhaps we could just forget about this second John entirely, as either the author of 1, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, or the gospel of John. So what if he mentions an otherwise unknown other John. And maybe this is why Polycrates also knows of only one John in Ephesus (who he thought was a "witness and teacher" and the "Beloved Disciple" in the gospel of John), and let's look at that again.

EH 3.31.3:
3. “For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and moreover John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He also sleeps at Ephesus.”
In this scenario there would be four Johns: John the son of Zebedee, who became the pillar John and then lived in Ephesus (as per Irenaeus and Polycrates); the John who wrote Revelation; the John who wrote the gospel of John; and the elder John Papias heard traditions from but is otherwise unknown (like Aristion).

That's starting to "feel" right. But I'm also getting the "feeling" that the author of the gospel of John might be pretending to be John the son of Zebedee. But what to make of the idea that this latter John also wrote Revelation? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it since I consider Revelation to be Jewish Christian. So my only question now is, how does 1, 2, and 3 John (which strike me as being Jewish Christian too) compare with Revelation? Could they have been written by the same person?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:39 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:12 pmBut does Papias himself ever equate this "other John" with the John that Polycrates says wore a sacerdotal plate and died in Ephesus (I can't think of anything offhand)?
No. Only Polycrates among all of our sources even mentions the sacerdotal plate, and its meaning is not immediately clear.
If not, then perhaps his first John could be John the son of Zebedee (and perhaps also the pillar John), and this is the John that Polycrates says lived in Asia and wore a sacerdotal plate, and his second John could be as otherwise unknown as Aristion.
Polycrates' John "who wore the sacerdotal plate" is also the "beloved disciple." We are back to the question: if there are two Johns, then are they both disciples?

My own tentative stance on all of this is that Papias mentioned two Johns: one was the disciple known from the gospels, the other an authority figure, an older contemporary of Papias who was known as "the elder." It is this "elder" who is meant in 2 & 3 John. The second "disciples of the Lord" phrase in Eusebius' quotation is a gloss intended to make clear to later generations that there was only one John, since practically everybody after Papias was keen to believe that the John from which Papias gleaned his information and who lived so long in Asia Minor was none other than the apostle of the Lord. Both Polycrates and Irenaeus conflate John the elder with John the apostle and son of Zebedee. Eusebius deconflates them, as it were, but only because he needs a patsy to pin the Apocalypse on; he is still certain that John of Zebedee was responsible for the gospel and for the epistle (1 John only; he is unsure about 2 & 3 John).

For my money, John the elder never was a disciple. The "beloved disciple," anonymous in the fourth gospel, was never originally imagined to be named John; that was a later idea, again with the intent of making direct apostolic influence last longer into early century II. Overall, what the early church wanted to be the case is less likely than that Papias and the rest of the church folks in Asia Minor were getting their information from an individual who had no direct connections to Jesus.

The matter of which John was also the pillar in Galatians 2 is completely open for me. I wish I knew. It could be some figure later ensconced in the gospels as John the son of Zebedee; or it could be John the elder at a much younger age, who later moved to Asia Minor. Or he could be someone else altogether. I am not sure.
Much to ponder here. As far as the sacerdotal plate goes, I'm inclined to think of it as a misunderstanding of John's uncut Nazirite hair (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5145.htm). I see it in the same light as what Hegesippus says about James in EH 2.23.5 ("No razor came upon his head").

Ben wrote:
My own tentative stance on all of this is that Papias mentioned two Johns: one was the disciple known from the gospels, the other an authority figure, an older contemporary of Papias who was known as "the elder." It is this "elder" who is meant in 2 & 3 John.
Hm. I'll have to explore that idea more.

And:
... practically everybody after Papias was keen to believe that the John from which Papias gleaned his information and who lived so long in Asia Minor was none other than the apostle of the Lord. Both Polycrates and Irenaeus conflate John the elder with John the apostle and son of Zebedee. Eusebius deconflates them, as it were, but only because he needs a patsy to pin the Apocalypse on; he is still certain that John of Zebedee was responsible for the gospel and for the epistle (1 John only; he is unsure about 2 & 3 John).
Do Ploycrates and Irenaeus really have Papias' second John in mind as being the disciple John? I'll have to explore that more too.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:25 pmThat's starting to "feel" right.
I think it "feels" right to keep John the elder in line as the one intended as "the elder" in 2 & 3 John. "The elder" comes off as an epithet, not as a mere descriptor, in both cases.
But I'm also getting the "feeling" that the author of the gospel of John might be pretending to be John the son of Zebedee.
I do not get that feeling at all. John of Zebedee as he appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a Galilean; the "beloved disciple" in John does not seem to appear until the passion sequence in Judea. Also, John of Zebedee is listed in the appendix (in John 21.2) along with all the other named or identified disciples; so why keep his name a secret? What in the gospel of John, on its own merits, even suggests John of Zebedee as either the author or the beloved disciple?
So my only question now is, how does 1, 2, and 3 John (which strike me as being Jewish Christian too) compare with Revelation? Could they have been written by the same person?
No, almost certainly not. The Greek of Revelation is notoriously barbaric. The Greek of the epistles is fine. As Dionysius of Alexandria wrote (according to Eusebius, History of the Church 7.25.24-25), "Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the gospel and epistle differs from that of the apocalypse. For they [= the gospel and the epistle, 1 John] were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever." Dionysius is contrasting the barbarisms and solecisms of the apocalypse with the elegant diction of the gospel and the first epistle of John (2 & 3 John being too short to do much with).
Do Polycrates and Irenaeus really have Papias' second John in mind as being the disciple John? I'll have to explore that more too.
No, I think they both assumed that Papias was talking about only one John, and that this John was the son of Zebedee, the apostle, the disciple, the elder, and the evangelist all rolled up into one.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who was John the Elder? The same author of the Epistles of 1 & 2 John

Post by John2 »

Ben also wrote:
The "beloved disciple," anonymous in the fourth gospel, was never originally imagined to be named John; that was a later idea, again with the intent of making direct apostolic influence last longer into early century II.
Very interesting. I need to look into that more too. Did the idea start with Irenaeus and Polycrates?
Overall, what the early church wanted to be the case is less likely than that Papias and the rest of the church folks in Asia Minor were getting their information from an individual who had no direct connections to Jesus.
I buy this now. There are two Johns in Papias, as you argue, and one of them "had no direct connections to Jesus."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply