Johns of early Christianity

[MrMacSon]

.
John the Baptist


John the Apostle

• (Aramaic: ܝܘܚܢܢ ܫܠܝܚܐ‎ Yohanan Shliha; Hebrew: יוחנן בן זבדי‎ Yohanan Ben Zavdai; Koine Greek: Ἰωάννης; Latin: Ioannes;

John the Evangelist

• aka John the Theologian or John the Divine; Greek: Εὐαγγελιστής Ἰωάννης

John the Elder

John the Presbyter

John of Patmos


The Johannine Literature -

• The Gospel of John
  
  The First Epistle of John
  
  The Second Epistle of John
  The Third Epistle of John
  
  The Book of Revelation / 'The Apocalypse'

Of these five books, the only one that identifies its author as a "John" is Revelation. Modern scholarship generally rejects the idea that this work is written by the same author as the other four documents[1].

The authorship of some Johannine literature has been debated since about the year 200.[2][3] Some doubt that the "Gospel of John" was written by an individual named "John" (Ἰωάννης or יוחנן). Nevertheless, the notion of "John the Evangelist" exists, and is usually thought of or asserted as the same as 'the Apostle John'.

• 1 Bruce, Frederick; Cain, Seymour; Davis, H. Grady; Faherty, Robert; Flusser, David (2012), "Biblical Literature", Encyclopaedia Britannica
  2 Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History Bk vi. Chap xxv.
  3 The Catholic Encylcopedia [The] Apocalyse

In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John are widely agreed upon as John the Evangelist's / John the Apostle's. Eusebius mentions that the consensus is that the second and third epistles of John are not that John's, but were written by some other John. Some assert that Eusebius supposedly also 'goes to some length to establish that there is no general consensus regarding the "revelation of John" (assumed to be the Book of Revelation)', but that is somewhat at odds with what the Catholic Encylopedia says (see posts below on this 1st page of this thread).

Sophronius of Jerusalem (560-638 AD/CE) noted that "two epistles bearing [the name John] ...are considered by some to be the work of a certain John the Elder" and, while stating that Revelation was written by John of Patmos, it was "later translated by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus",[4] presumably in an attempt to reconcile tradition with the obvious differences in Greek style.

• 4 "The Life of the Evangelist John" in The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to [St] John [Crysostom], House Springs, Missouri, USA: Chrysostom Press, 2007; pp. 2–3, ISBN 1-889814-09-1
  
  • "Written 900 years ago by Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid, these commentaries distill the essence of St. John Chrysostom's preaching [c.349–407] -and that of other great fathers of the patristic era- many centuries before his own time. Blessed Theophylact has given us a " Bible study" of ancient and divine origin, untouched by contemporary opinions and discussions ..."
    
    http://www.amazon.com/Explanation-Holy- ... 1889814083

While Justin Martyr, was the first to equate the author of Revelation with John the Apostle[5], some biblical scholars now contend that these were separate individuals.[6][7]

• 5 Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4
  6 Harris, Stephen L (1985) Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield) p. 355
  7 Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.

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."

• Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished. (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30) - Adela Collins. "Patmos." in Harper's Bible Dictionary. Paul J. Achtemeier, gen. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. p755.

[Ben C. Smith]

.... John of Patmos ....

AKA John the Revelator. (Apologies to any who cannot abide Depeche Mode.)

But yes, all things Johannine are quite a mess in early Christianity. Hard to sort out.

[MrMacSon]

AKA John the Revelator. (Apologies to any who cannot abide Depeche Mode.)

But yes, all things Johannine are quite a mess in early Christianity. Hard to sort out.

lol. Cheers!

[MrMacSon]

.. all things Johannine are quite a mess in early Christianity. Hard to sort out.

Yes; from John the Apostle

"Until the 19th century, the authorship of the Gospel of John had universally been attributed to the Apostle John.

"Today, many *theological scholars* continue to accept the traditional authorship. Colin G. Kruse states that, since John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers, 'it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars'."

• Kruse, Colin G (2004) The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-2771-3, p.28

"However, most modern *critical scholars* have their doubts" (in chronological order) -

• Harris, Stephen L. (1985) Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield) p. 355
  
  Foley OFM, Leonard. "Saint of the Day: Lives, Lessons and Feast" (revised by Pat McCloskey, OFM), American Catholic.org
  
  F.F. Bruce (1994) The Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing;
  
  E P Sanders (1995) The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin) pp 63-4.
  
  Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) Matthew, Gospel according to, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P Wm B Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: "Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”
  
  Patrick J. Flannagan (1997:16) The Gospel of Mark Made Easy, Paulist Press
  
  Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings, Oxford University Press.
  
  Keith Fullerton Nickle (2001:43) The Synoptic Gospels: an introduction, Westminster John Knox Press.
  
  Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels, Paulist Press.
  
  Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci, InterVarsity Press.
  
  Bart D. Ehrman (2005:235) Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew, Oxford University Press, New York.

[MrMacSon]

.
The Catholic Encylcopedia is interesting on the Book of Revelation -- aka the Apocalypse -

Authenticity

The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. "John to the seven churches which are in Asia" (Apocalypse 1:4). And again, "I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation . . . was in the island which called Patmos, for the word of God" (1:9).

The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from 'tradition' we 'know' that the Seer of the Apocalypse was John the Apostle the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle.

In Asia, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, acknowledged the Revelation of John and wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Church History IV.26). In Gaul, Irenaeus firmly believes in its Divine and Apostolic authority (Against Heresies 5.30). In Africa, Tertullian frequently quotes Revelation without apparent misgivings as to its authenticity (Against Marcion III). In Italy, Bishop Hippolytus assigns it to the Apostle St. John, and the Muratorian Fragment (a document about the beginning of the third century) enumerates it along with the other canonical writings ...

Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius (Church History IV.18.8), as well as from his 'dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon' (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Another witness of about the same time is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a place not far from Ephesus. If he himself had not been a hearer of St. John, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples (Eusebius, Church History III.39). His evidence however is but indirect. Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias admitted its inspired character ...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

Arguments against its authenticity

The Alogi, about AD 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.11.9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation:

• "But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom" (Church History III.28).

The most formidable antagonist of 'the authority' of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. "For", he says, "this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite". He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Church History VII.25).

During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: "The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected" (Church History III.25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate ...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

The Apocalypse compared with the Fourth Gospel

... Dionysius, drew up in his time a list of differences to which modern authors have had little to add. He begins by observing that whereas the Gospel is anonymous, the writer of the Apocalypse prefixes his name, John. He next points out how the characteristic terminology of the Fourth Gospel, so essential to the Joannine doctrine, is absent in the Apocalypse. The terms, "life", "light", "grace", "truth", do not occur in the latter. Nor did the crudeness of diction on the part of the Apocalypse escape him. The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style. But the language of the Apocalypse appeared to him barbarous and disfigured by solecisms. He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Church History VII.25).

The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. The Apocalypse contains visions and revelations. In conformity with other books of the same kind, e.g. the Book of Daniel, the Seer prefixed his name to his work. The Gospel on the other hand is written in the form of an historical record [cough cough]. In the Bible, works of that kind do not bear the signature of their authors. ...

The object of the Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the life and the light of the world, the fullness of truth and grace. But in the Apocalypse Jesus is the conqueror of Satan and his kingdom. The defects of grammar in the Apocalypse are conceded. Some of them are quite obvious. Let the reader but notice the habit of the author to add an apposition in the nominative to a word in an oblique case; e.g. 3:12; 14:12; 20:2. It further contains some Hebrew idioms: e.g. the Hebrew equivalent to erchomenos, "the one that is to come", instead of esomenos, 1:8. But it should be borne in mind that when the Apostle first came to Ephesus he was, probably wholly ignorant of the Greek tongue.

The comparative purity and smoothness of diction in the Gospel may be adequately accounted for by the plausible conjecture that its literary composition was not the work of St. John but of one of his pupils. The defenders of the identity of authorship further appeal to the striking fact that in both works Jesus is called the Lamb and the Word. The idea of the lamb making atonement for sin by its blood is taken from Isaiah 53. Throughout the Apocalypse the portraiture of Jesus is that of the lamb. Through the shedding of its blood it has opened the book with seven seals and has triumphed over Satan. In the Gospel Jesus is pointed out by the Baptist as the "Lamb of God . . . him who taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Some of the circumstances of His death resemble the rite observed in the eating of the paschal lamb, the symbol of redemption. His crucifixion takes place on the selfsame day on which the Passover was eaten (John 18:28) ...

The name Logos, "Word", is quite peculiar to the Apocalypse, Gospel, and first Epistle of St. John. The first sentence of the Gospel is, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". The first epistle of St. John begins, "That which was from the beginning which we have heard . . . of the word of life". So also in the Apocalypse, "And his name is called the Word of God" (19:13).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

[MrMacSon]

Time and place [of the Book of Revelation -- aka the Apocalypse]

The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. "I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (1:9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus.

Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God's word (Church History III.18). He obviously refers to the passage "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (1:9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, "in order to hear the word of God", etc., and not "banished because of the word of God", etc., (cf. 1:2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God's word.

The 'tradition' 'recorded by Eusebius' finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as "a brother and partaker in tribulation" (1:9).

Irenaeus places the Seer's exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian's reign. "Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii" (Against Heresies V.4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer's exile the fourteenth of Domitian's reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. "Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim" (Ex libro de Script. Eccl).

Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition, the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer's banishment in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41-54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

The rest is an interesting read, particularly for the passages lifted from the OT

[MrMacSon]

John Dominic Crossan believes part of the Gospel of John was constructed at the beginning of the 2nd century AD/CE, and another part was constructed later, closer to the middle of the 2nd century CE. Following Rudolf Bultmann, he believes there is an earlier 'Signs Source' for John (just as Crossan believes was the case for the passion narratives of the synoptic gospels).

[Adam]

The earlier "Signs Source" mentions no "John" but rather the apostles Andrew and Phillip. Cross-referencing to John 1 the other disciple of John the Baptist in addition to Andrew becomes Phillip. For this much of the Gospel of John (the narrative portions through John 12) there is no connection with any of the "Johns".
The rest of John through John 17 is mostly anonymous Discourses, certainly not connected with a Galilean fisherman. So nothing through John 17 has any connection with a "John", except John 13 where the beloved Disciple appears. There is nothing conclusive to make him a "John" either. but best assumed so to make at least some reason for the whole to get named "the Gospel of John".
There is of course every reason to think that the "disciple known to the High Priest" of John 19:13-14 is NOT a Gallilean fisherman John or whomever, but on the other hand he may yet be a John, namely John Mark.
The gentle character of the Beloved Disciple fits well with the Epistles of John, helping explain why the epistles got their name as well as the Gospel.
Neither one of the two Johns speculated thus far correlates with anything about the Apocalypse, who IS definitely a John, thus a "Third John". But most importantly the author of high Johannine theology is not any one of these three Johns.
The "Presbyter John" or "John the Elder" is probably over-rated, not even a final finisher of the Gospel of John as our latest speculation here at BC&H is that Apelles (Apollo) finished the Gospel of John, probably as redactor. We can reduce the number of really important men named John. The extra Johns were found useful by sophisticated critics to attach a non-apostolic name "John" to the gospel, but I have above shown two who would have been sufficient to give their names to the Gospel of John, particularly in the light of the Muratorian Canon that gave John the Apostle the (probably overstated) pivotal role in getting the Gospel written.

[MrMacSon]

The earlier "Signs Source" mentions no "John" but rather the apostles Andrew and Phillip.

Do you have a reference or citation for that signs source'?

Cross-referencing to John 1 the other disciple of John the Baptist in addition to Andrew becomes Phillip.

I'm not sure what you mean there.


I appreciate the rest of your commentary -

For this much of the Gospel of John (the narrative portions through John 12) there is no connection with any of the "Johns".

The rest of John through John 17 is mostly anonymous Discourses, certainly not connected with a Galilean fisherman. So nothing through John 17 has any connection with a "John", except John 13 where the 'beloved Disciple' appears. There is nothing conclusive to make him a "John" either, but best assumed so; to make at least some reason for the whole to get named "the Gospel of John".

There is of course every reason to think that the "disciple known to the High Priest" of John 19:13-14 is NOT a Gallilean fisherman John or whomever, but on the other hand he may yet be a John, namely John Mark.

The gentle character of 'the Beloved Disciple' fits well with the Epistles of John, helping explain why the epistles got their name as well as the Gospel.

Neither one of the two Johns speculated thus far correlates with anything about 'the Apocalypse', who IS definitely a John, thus a "Third John". But most importantly the author of high Johannine theology is not any one of these three Johns.

The "Presbyter John" or "John the Elder" is probably over-rated; not even a final finisher of the Gospel of John, as our latest speculation here at BC&H is that Apelles (Apollo) finished the Gospel of John, probably as redactor. We can reduce the number of really important men named John. The extra Johns were found useful by sophisticated critics to attach a non-apostolic name "John" to the gospel, but I have above shown two who would have been sufficient to give their names to the Gospel of John, particularly in the light of the Muratorian Canon that gave John the Apostle the (probably overstated) pivotal role in getting the Gospel written.

[Huon]

John sends messages to seven (magic number) churches of Asia (Rev 1:4, and Rev 1:11), Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. It is surprising that John never speaks of Antioch, Perga in Pamphylia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia, which were places where Paul preached. Inversely Paul never speaks of Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. The only places quoted simultaneously by John and Paul are Ephesus and Thyatira.

Paul makes one mention of Thyatira (Acts 16,12 to 16,15) :

16:12 and from thence to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony: and we were in this city tarrying certain days. 16:13 And on the sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

So, this Lydia of Thyatira worshipped God, but, either she had not been baptized, or a previous baptism was not valid in the eyes of Paul.

In his message to Thyatira, John says (Rev 2,20 to 2,22) :
2:20 But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 2:21 And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication.

It seems that Thyatira was a place where two sorts of Christians were in conflict, about baptism, and eating forbidden food (not speaking of fornication!).

About Ephesus, John writes (Rev 2,2 and 2,6) :
2:2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

About Ephesus, Paul writes (Acts 19,1 to 19,5) :
19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given. 19:3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Still a problem with baptism.

Ephesus was a place where John, Paul, Apollos, the Nicolaitans were proselytising.