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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:28 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:08 pm My only question now is, why are 2 and 3 John thought to have not been authored by the same person who wrote 1 John? I suppose that Papias only knowing 1 John and only 2 and 3 John saying "the elder" could be an indication of it, but what else is there?
The heavy similarity of style and subject matter, especially between 1 & 2 John. If I were to quote random verses from each, I do not think you could tell which was which, unless you had them basically memorized. See here for more, as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3194. Something is going on between them.
It sounds like you are giving me reasons for thinking that 1, 2 and 3 John were written by the same person, and I am wondering what makes people think they were not written by the same person (unless I'm misunderstanding you). They all seem similar enough for me to think that they were written by the same person, but I'm fairly new to this.
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 8:53 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:28 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:08 pm My only question now is, why are 2 and 3 John thought to have not been authored by the same person who wrote 1 John? I suppose that Papias only knowing 1 John and only 2 and 3 John saying "the elder" could be an indication of it, but what else is there?
The heavy similarity of style and subject matter, especially between 1 & 2 John. If I were to quote random verses from each, I do not think you could tell which was which, unless you had them basically memorized. See here for more, as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3194. Something is going on between them.
It sounds like you are giving me reasons for thinking that 1, 2 and 3 John were written by the same person, and I am wondering what makes people think they were not written by the same person (unless I'm misunderstanding you). They all seem similar enough for me to think that they were written by the same person, but I'm fairly new to this.
I missed the "not" in your sentence. :oops:

You nailed the main reasons, I think: Papias knowing 1 John (and not the other two?) and the anonymity of the first epistle versus "the elder" of the second and third epistles.

The first reason is easy to overcome, at least on its own: 2 & 3 John are so short that the can easily escape being quoted. I think that Bauckham is probably right when he deduces that the "testimonies" which Papias drew from 1 Peter and from 1 John were the "eyewitness" texts: 1 John 1.1-4 and 1 Peter 5.1-5, 13; and neither 1 nor 2 John has anything like that, so Papias may have had no reason to quote from them. See here for more about the possibility that Papias thought of the elder John (whether rightly or wrongly) as a witness of Jesus, but not as a disciple: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3226&start=10#p86494.

The second reason is more substantial. My own view for the moment is that 1 John was supposed to be a corporate effort, a shared document drawn up by a committee. 2 John, on the other hand, was from the pen of one of the people responsible for 1 John, probably even the person most responsible for 1 John, if the shared style is of importance.
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 »

The second reason is more substantial. My own view for the moment is that 1 John was supposed to be a corporate effort, a shared document drawn up by a committee. 2 John, on the other hand, was from the pen of one of the people responsible for 1 John, probably even the person most responsible for 1 John, if the shared style is of importance.
Do you think, if 1 John was a corporate effort, that it could be a reflection of his "pillar" status (if we assume that John the disciple was also the pillar and wrote 1 John), like in Acts 15:19-20?
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them ...
This reminds me of MMT, which is also a "corporate effort" (and which I in any event view as being possibly Jewish Christian given the language and paleographical dating up to 50 CE):
Remember the kings of Israe[l], and understand their works. Whoever of them feared [the L]aw was saved from sufferings; when they so[ug]ht the Law, [then] their sins [were forgiven] them. Remember David. He was a man of pious works, and he, also, was [salved from many sufferings and forgiven. And finally, we (earlier) wrote you about some of the works of the Law, which we reckoned for your own good and for that of your people, for we see that you possess discernment and knowledge of the Torah. Consider all these things, and beseech Him to grant you proper counsel, and to keep you far from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial.

Then you will rejoice at the End Time, when you find some of our words were true. Thus, it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, your having done what is upright and good before Him, for your own good and for that of Israel.
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:14 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:03 pm
Okay, so let's see what we have now.

1. John the son of Zebedee, disciple of Jesus (and perhaps the pillar as well)
2. John the elder, otherwise unknown (like Aristion)
3. John of Patmos who wrote Revelation
4. Whoever wrote the gospel of John
Just
  • 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 ( Greek: Εὐαγγελιστής Ἰωάννης)
  • John the Theologian
  • John the Divine, and
  • John the Presbyter
to go :P :popcorn: :D
I know you are just goofing off, but all but one of these is just a conscious double. John the elder = John the presbyter (presbyteros being the Greek word for "elder"). John the apostle = John the son of Zebedee; nobody ever split these two. John the theologian = John the divine = John the elder + John the apostle (as conflated in church tradition after Papias).

John the evangelist is, in my opinion, a phantom. The gospel internally claims to have been written or edited by an anonymous "we" (= the elders of Ephesus?) on the basis of and about the beloved disciple, who is also said to have written "these things," whatever that means:

John 19.34-35: 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

John 21.24-25: 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

But the beloved disciple is nowhere called John, not until Polycrates and Irenaeus, so far as our extant witnesses are concerned. There seems to have been at least one previous edition of John (probably several, actually), after which the twenty-first chapter was added, and it would seem that the editors who put together the edition which included that chapter were claiming that the beloved disciple actually wrote (one of) the first edition(s). This I take to be a natural growth in the process of more and more closely identifying the anonymous authors of the gospels with named and/or described disciples of Jesus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 9:34 pm
The second reason is more substantial. My own view for the moment is that 1 John was supposed to be a corporate effort, a shared document drawn up by a committee. 2 John, on the other hand, was from the pen of one of the people responsible for 1 John, probably even the person most responsible for 1 John, if the shared style is of importance.
Do you think, if 1 John was a corporate effort, that it could be a reflection of his "pillar" status (if we assume that John the disciple was also the pillar and wrote 1 John), like in Acts 15:19-20?
Possibly.

But I dissent from the suggestion that 1 John has anything to do with John the disciple. 1 John is closely connected with 2 John, as discussed, and 2 John was penned by "the elder." It is most natural to take this figure to be the same as Papias' "John the elder," who is distinct from John the disciple.

There are secrets lurking behind that triumvirate of Peter/Cephas, James, and John that still elude me, but hear me out. The synoptics have their own triumvirate by those same names, and yet the canonical record, if we count Acts, makes the James in Mark a different one than the James in Galatians. Odd that one James would fade out (martyred, according to Acts 12.1-2) only to be replaced by another James. I have suggested before that Mark artificially based his triumvirate on Paul's triumvirate in Galatians, Peter being the only real constant, with James and John being tagged on just to round out the threesome.

Papias lists his seven disciples in the following order: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew. Of the first four on the list, Peter is the constant one across most if not all traditions. Andrew is almost a nobody in the synoptics, while Philip and Thomas truly are nobodies in the synoptics (mentioned only in the apostolic lists). This suggests to me that these just happened to be the people whom Papias was able to glean information about, for better or for worse. And this will later translate into Andrew, Thomas, and Philip getting bigger roles in the gospel of John. But what about the last three disciples on the list? Matthew does not appear in John at all, and James and John appear (as the sons of Zebedee) only in the appendix, chapter 21. Papias surely lists Matthew here mainly because Matthew was known to have penned a gospel text (albeit one not yet called a gospel, at least not by Papias). Mark is the only other gospel Papias seems to have mentioned, but Papias is clear that Mark was no disciple, so Mark rightly fails to make the list. So, again, what about James and John? It seems possible that Papias listed them mainly because of their prominence in the gospel of Mark as one of the inner circle of three. But perhaps he got little or no information about them from his travelers, and that is why they barely appear in the gospel of John. This may be support for my notion that the Marcan triumvirate is artificial, based solely upon Galatians and pressed into service by the synoptics before being later picked up on by the likes of Papias. Mark has Jesus predict that James and John will meet their deaths as martyrs (10.39), suggesting that by the time Mark was written both of them were off the scene already, and providing further evidence that John the elder is not that disciple named John. So Mark is consciously writing about people already dead, if they even existed in that form at all: people who can no longer protest that they were really not there.
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 »

But I dissent from the suggestion that 1 John has anything to do with John the disciple. 1 John is closely connected with 2 John, as discussed, and 2 John was penned by "the elder." It is most natural to take this figure to be the same as Papias' "John the elder," who is distinct from John the disciple.

There are secrets lurking behind that triumvirate of Peter/Cephas, James, and John that still elude me ...
Alright, but my impression (as I've noted above) is that 1 John (whoever wrote it) seems Jewish Christian and opposed to Paul (and in line with the letter of James). As I wrote:
It just seems curious that they both talk about being led astray (1 John 3:7, Gal.1:6-9 and 2:11-13), destruction (1 John 3:8, Gal. 2:18), Torah observance (1 John 3:4, Gal. 2:16), the devil (1 John 3:8, 2 Cor. 11:14), and "the Son of God" (1 John 3:8, Gal. 2:20), with James echoing the theme of being led astray and the devil (2:14 and 3:15).They all seem to be using the same kind of language, but 1 John seems to be in line with James (and thus with Jewish Christianity) while Paul doesn't.
And again, what could be more "Jewish Christian" than to say, "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4)?

I've previously seen 2 John (whoever wrote it) as possibly being a response to Docetism, but now I'm thinking it too could be directed at Paul, since it too seems to be "using the same kind of language" as Paul.

2 John 1:7-11:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, that you may be fully rewarded. Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son.

If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.
1 Cor. 9:24-27:
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way as to take the prize. Everyone who competes in the games trains with strict discipline. They do it for a crown that is perishable, but we do it for a crown that is imperishable. Therefore I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight like I am beating the air. No, I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
2 Cor. 5:16:
So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
Could it not be argued from the latter that Paul refused "to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh"? And while it doesn't use the same word, is it not curious that both 2 John and Paul refer to "running" and being rewarded in the context of preaching?

I would suppose that this could still be the case if 2 John was written by Papias' second John (John the elder). While I don't have the impression that Papias was Jewish, his version of Christianity strikes me as being Jewish Christian, since he does not mention Paul (though neither do Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, but let's set them aside for the moment) and used what I consider to be Jewish Christian writings (Mark, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John), espoused chiliasm (which is in keeping with Revelation -and even somewhat with the Damascus Document) and lived in Asia, a province with a sizeable (and according to Acts, violent and hotheaded) Jewish Christian presence (cf. I Peter 1:1, Rev. 1:4, Acts 21:27).

So I would reckon that, if Papias lived c. 100 CE, then the travelers that he talked to (including John the elder) may have been of a Jewish Christian orientation. In other words, I would view Papias as subscribing to a form of Christianity like that in the Didache, which, like Papias, discusses how to deal with travelers and also sounds like 1 John to me.

Did. 11:1-2:
Whosoever then comes and teaches you all these things aforesaid, receive him. But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him, but if his teaching be for the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
1 John 2:26, 3:4 and 7-10:
I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you ...

Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness ...

Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil.

Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Did. 6:1-3:
See that no one make thee to err from this Way of the teaching, for he teaches thee without God. For if thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect, but if thou canst not, do what thou canst. And concerning food, bear what thou canst, but keep strictly from that which is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods.
Acts 15:20 and 21:20-25:
... we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols ...
Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law.

As for the Gentile believers, we have written them our decision that they must abstain from food sacrificed to idols ...
1 Cor. 8:7-8:
Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
1 Cor. 9:19-21:
Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law. To those without the Law I became like one without the Law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the Law.
1 John 3:4 (again):
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.
So whoever wrote 1 (and 2 and 3) John, they seem Jewish Christian (and anti-Paul) to me.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply