Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:14 pm I think the reason Papias seems "John-like" (such as in his ordering of the apostles) is because he knew John the elder (and/or knew people who knew him).

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue for the Gospel of John claims that John dictated the Gospel to Papias, and that Papias was the close disciple of John. Thus, there is at least one tradition that Papias may actually be the author or scribe for some or all of the Gospel of John. Of course, the Gospel itself says that the Beloved Disciple wrote “these things” down. Oddly, the Anti-Marcionite prologue for Luke states that the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and then the Gospel in Asia.  Is there a conflict within the Anti-Marcionite Prologues or is writing the same same thing as dictating?

One thing that is interesting, is that I think that nowhere in the Gospel of John, is there a John mentioned as a disciple or apostle of Jesus. There is John the Baptist and Simon son of John, but no John the Apostle or Disciple. In John 21, the sons of Zebedee are noted, but their names are not stated, and the Beloved Disciple is not claimed to be one of the sons of Zebedee.

Anyway, questions for the Beloved Disciple mystery:

1. Did the writer of the gospel have a specific person in mind, or was it a literary device?
2. Did the writer expect the audience to know exactly who he meant?
3. Was the writer intentionally trying to hide the name for some reason?
4. Was there some form of word play or reference that the audience would have understood, but that is now lost to time?

Mrvegas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 6:21 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:14 pm I think the reason Papias seems "John-like" (such as in his ordering of the apostles) is because he knew John the elder (and/or knew people who knew him).

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue for the Gospel of John claims that John dictated the Gospel to Papias, and that Papias was the close disciple of John. Thus, there is at least one tradition that Papias may actually be the author or scribe for some or all of the Gospel of John. Of course, the Gospel itself says that the Beloved Disciple wrote “these things” down. Oddly, the Anti-Marcionite prologue for Luke states that the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and then the Gospel in Asia.  Is there a conflict within the Anti-Marcionite Prologues or is writing the same same thing as dictating?

Good question. In John 19:35 it seems like the Beloved Disciple could be dictating ("He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe").

Perhaps this has something to do with why the author of the anti-marcionite prologue for John had the impression that the gospel of John was dictated. And since Papias knew (and/or knew people who knew) John the elder, the author believed that Papias had something to do with writing it down.

And Irenaeus (based on Papias) says that Papias was a "hearer of John" (EH 3.39.1), and in EH 3.39.7 Eusebius says that Papias wrote down things (in his five books) that were said by John the elder:

Papias ... 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.

And here is the prologue for John:

This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet still in the body, as the Heiropolitan, Papias by name, dear disciple of John, transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated.

My take on this is that Papias only confirms that this John (whoever he was) was alive at a particular time, not that he was the author of the gospel of John or that Papias knew that gospel. In other words, everything here (except for the name, time period and location of this John person) is only in the head of the author of the prologue, presumably using Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe Papias said something about the gospel of John and Eusebius chose not to cite anything from him about it, but that would need some explaining (as Bauckham tries to do), and my take makes that unnecessary.

And by the way, Bauckham i(in the above-linked book around page 70, which for some reason isn't viewable for me today so I can't give any citations) is making me reconsider that Irenaeus thought the gospel of John was written by the apostle John, but rather by John the elder, like Papias says. That would make a ton of sense and upend my long-held assumption.

One thing that is interesting, is that I think that nowhere in the Gospel of John, is there a John mentioned as a disciple or apostle of Jesus. There is John the Baptist and Simon son of John, but no John the Apostle or Disciple. In John 21, the sons of Zebedee are noted, but their names are not stated, and the Beloved Disciple is not claimed to be one of the sons of Zebedee.

It is very curious and I don't know what to make of it.

Anyway, questions for the Beloved Disciple mystery:

1. Did the writer of the gospel have a specific person in mind, or was it a literary device?

I don't know.

2. Did the writer expect the audience to know exactly who he meant?

I don't know.

3. Was the writer intentionally trying to hide the name for some reason?

I don't know.

4. Was there some form of word play or reference that the audience would have understood, but that is now lost to time?

I don't know. These are good questions to ponder.

You know, if (as Bauckham supposes) Irenaeus understood the identity of Papias' John correctly (i.e., that he is John the elder), maybe the anti-marcionite prologue understands that too. Yes, they both call this John an "apostle," but Bauckham explains this to my satisfaction (I'll give a citation if/when I can, but it's around and including page 70).

And here is the anti-marcionite prologue again:

[End of prologue to Luke:] Later the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and then the Gospel in Asia. [Beginning of prologue to John:] The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully.

This would all be "true" if we understand "the apostle John" (as he's called at the end of the prologue to Luke) to be John the elder, as Bauckham argues Irenaeus does. It would only be wrong (in my view) about this John also writing Revelation.

If this is the case, here is how it would look to me. John the elder (who I still think could be the pillar John, given his priestly "nezer" description) teaches in Asia and lives to an old age (c. 100 CE). While there he teaches Polycarp and Papias, who in turn teach Irenaeus (by hearing Polycarp and reading Papias). Some of the things that this John taught were written down by Papias and put into his five books, and some things that John himself wrote down and said ended up in or inspired the gospel of John.

That would mean that Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius and the anti-marcionite prologue are telling the same thing (more or less), that John (the elder, not John of the Twelve), directly or via his followers during his lifetime, taught some things that Papias wrote down (in his five books) and also taught and/or wrote some things that ended up in (or inspired) the gospel of John. In other words, a real John (the elder) had something to do with both Papias and the gospel of John.

That there was some confusion about who exactly John was and how exactly he related to Papias would be understandable. Look how "confused" I've been about John's identity in Irenaeus, and how confused we all are about these matters. But all in all, the message seems fairly consistent from Papias to Irenaeus to Eusebius and the anti-marcionite prologue, that a John who was a disciple of Jesus but not one of the Twelve, lived in Asia and taught Papias and had something to do with the gospel of John. And anyone who understood this as John of the Twelve, well, that was their problem.