Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T09:40:03.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Identifications of Authorship of the Johannine Writings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

J. J. Gunther
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

T. W. Manson posed the following problem:

…quotations are absent in those places where we should most confidently look lor them it the Fourth Gospel was composed in Ephesus about A.D, 100 by John the Apostle. No theory about the Gospel that fails to give an explanation of the phenomenon presented by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin has much chance of survival.

No information about the Fourth Gospel or its author appears in the Pastoral Epistles.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1980 , pp. 407 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Manson, T. W., ‘The Fourth Gospel’ (1947)Google Scholar , Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Black, M., Manchester 1962, 111Google Scholar.

2 Bacon, B., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate. New Haven 1918. 61.Google Scholar

3 Dodd, C. H.. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge 1963, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; he refers to Harrison, P. N., Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians, Cambridge 1936, 285–335Google Scholar.

4 The reading tuei, i.e. solvit, concerning the division of'Jesus and the Christ, has the best credentials. See , Socrates, H.E. vii. 32Google Scholar ; Tischendorf, Constantinus, Novum Testamentum Graece, Leipzig 1872, ii. 331–2Google Scholar ; Lightfoot, J. B., ‘Supernatural Religion’, Contemporary Review, 25 05 1875, 849Google Scholar , n. 1 ; Brooke, A. E., A Critical and Exegelical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (I.C.C.), New York 1912, 110–13Google Scholar ; Schackenburg, R., Die Johannesbriefe (Herder Theol. Komm.), Freiburg-Basle-Vienna 1963, 222Google Scholar (with bibliography); Bultmann, R., Die drei Johannesbriefe (Meyers Komm.), Göttingen 1967, 67Google Scholar.

5 On the origin of Polycarp's formula as an ecclesiastical watchword, see Campenhausen, H. von, Aus der Friihzeil des Christenlums, Tubingen 1963, 239–40Google Scholar . The existence of an ecclesiastical resolution is implicit in 7, 2 (‘let us return’) and in 8, 1-2 (‘let us therefore’); the compact creed ends: ‘we believe this’. The reference to ‘the futility and false teachings of many’ implies the intent to include more than one heretical christology in the condemnation. The denial of the Incarnation and saving significance of the crucifixion was common to the Egyptian Cerinthus and the Syrian Docetists (Gunther, J. J.. ‘Syrian Christian Dualism’, Vigiliae Christianae, xxv (1971), 86)Google Scholar . Because the wording of the Johannine letters could readily be adapted to combat Docetism, it was probably used by a conference of Eastern Christians c. 115-20. Anti-Docetism led to the corruption of the text of 1 John iv. 3. The same conference condemned a third heresy: libertinism appealing to the Lord's words (Polyc. 7,1).

6 Bibliography in Regul, J., Die Antimardonitischen Evangelienprologe, Freiburg 1969, 143Google Scholar , nn. 1-2. See also Drummond, J., An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, London 1903, 245–8Google Scholar , 251-3; Bacon, B., ‘The Elderjohn injerusalem’, Zeitschriftfur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (hereafter cited as Z.N.T.W.), xxvi (1927), 190, 195–7, 200-01Google Scholar.

7 Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, ‘The Quest for the Johannine School: the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel’, New Testament Studies (hereafter cited as N.T.S.), xxiii (1977), 411Google Scholar , 418, 421-2, 425, notes that the author of Revelation is closer to the Pauline than the ‘Johannine’ tradition. See below, p. 411.

8 Sanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Mastin, B. A. (Harper's N.T. Comm.), New York and Evanston 1969, 36.Google Scholar

9 , Drummond, An Inquiry, 100, 149.Google Scholar

10 Even here dependence on John is unlikely (ibid., 93; Bellinzoni, A. J., The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, Leiden 1967, 134–8Google Scholar ; Kline, L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (SBL Diss. 14), Missoula, Mont. 1975, 134–7Google Scholar ; cf. Osborn, Eric, Justin Martyr, Tubingen 1973, 137)Google Scholar.

11 The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, Cambridge 1943, 32Google Scholar . Hillmer, M. R. in his 1966 Harvard dissertation, ‘The Gospel of John in the Second Century’, 51–73Google Scholar , concludes: ‘At no point either in the gospel material in Justin or in his understanding of the Logos, have we found any evidence of relationship with the Fourth Gospel.’

12 , Epiphanius. Pan. 48Google Scholar . 1; transl. from Grant, R. M., Second Century Christianity, London 1957, 96Google Scholar . Montanus named rwo towns ot Phrygia, ‘Jerusalem’ (Apollonius ap. Eusebius v. 18. 1). See Aland, Kurt, ‘Der Montanismus und die kleinasiatische Theologie’, Z.N.T.W., xlvi (1955), 113–14Google Scholar ; Kraft, Heinz, ‘Die altkirchliche Prophetie und die Entstehung des Montanismus’, Theologische Zeitschrift, xi (1955), 260, 262Google Scholar.

13 Bludau, August, Die ersten Gegner derjohannesschriften (Bibl. Studien 22), Freiburg 1925, 23–5Google Scholar ; Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia 1971, 141, 145, 225Google Scholar ; , Aland. ‘Dei Montanismus’, 114–15Google Scholar ; , Kraft, ‘Diealtkirchliche Prophetie’, 255–6Google Scholar.

14 On Res. of Flesh, 63; cf. On Veiling oj Virgins, 1; On Monogamy, 2; Ps.-Tertullian, Against all Heresies. 7.

15 , Didymus, De Trinitate, iii. 41.1.Google Scholar

16 , Bludau, Die ersten Gegner, 27.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., 38-9. As Revelation left no mark on the known writings of Polycarp and the anti-Montanist (Eusebius iv. 27; v. 19) Claudius Apollinarius of Hierapolis, we may presume that Revelation was not universally honoured in Asia Minor. It would be less read in churches than gospels.

18 Rose, V.. ‘Les Aloges asiates et les aloges romains’. Rev. biblique. vi (1897), 519, 524.Google Scholar

19 Transl. from , Grant, Second Century Christianity, 118.Google Scholar

20 Ap. Philip of Side and George Hamartolus. See Schwartz, Eduard, Ober den Tod der Sohne Zebeddi, Berlin 1904Google Scholar ; supported by J. Wellhausen. J. Moffatt, B. Bacon, F. C. Burkitt, C. F. Burney, B. H. Streeter, M. Enslin, R. Bultmann et al.

21 Hornschuh, M., ‘Acts of Andrew’, in Schneemelcher, Edgar Hennecke-Wilhelm, New Testament Apocrypha, Philadelphia 1965, ii. 396–7Google Scholar . Victorinus (Comm. in Rev. 11.1) stated: convenerunt ad ilium definitimis civitatibus episcopi et compelerunt, ut ipse testimonium conscriberit; cf. , Jerome, De vir. ill., 9Google Scholar : rogatus ab Asiae episcopii.

22 The Preaching of Peter (ap. Alex, Clement., Strom, vi. 5. 43)Google Scholar ; Acts of Peter, chap. 5; Apollonius (ap. Eusebius v. 18. 4). Epiphanius believed John prophesied at , Patmos ‘during the time of Claudius Caesar and before’ (51, 33. 9)Google Scholar . The latter phrase indicates an apologetic need to date him early. Had Epiphanius read in Hippolytus's Heads against Gains that some in Rome dated Revelation this early (see below, p. 416)? Ps.-Epiphanius, Ps.-Dorotheus and Solomon of Bosra believed John was exiled by Tiberius (d. 37 A.D.) (Schermann, Theodor, Propheten— und Apostellegenden (TU 31). Leipzig 1907, 264–5)Google Scholar . Ps.-Hippolytus (Ante-Nicene Fathers v. 85.5) claimed John wrote his Gospel and Apocalypse under Oomitian and died during Trajan's reign. That the Alogi and Gaius forced the difficult chronological question is evident from the divergent dates assigned to the Johannine literature by its defenders (see below, pp.416-18).

23 , Bluclau, Die enten Cegner, 171–2Google Scholar . However, it is sounder only to assert a continuity ot anti-Johannineanti-Montanism culminating in Gaius's Dialogue with Proclus.

24 , Bluclau, Die ersten Gegner, 168–9.Google Scholar

25 On the chronological problem see Schmidt, Carl, Gespräche Jesu mit seinenjungem nach der Aufentehung, Leipzig 1919, 430–1.Google Scholar

26 , Bludau, Die enten Gegner, 34-5, 181–200, 227.Google Scholar

27 ‘The Cospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, The Framework of the New Testament Stories, Cambridge. Mass. 1964, 31Google Scholar.

28 Some authorities have considered Caius to be the only Alogi writer; but the arguments are weak: see , Bludau, Die ersten Cegner, 221–2.Google Scholar

29 Found in Gwynn, John, ‘Hippolytus and his “Heads against Gaius”’, Hermathena vi (1888), 397–418Google Scholar ; Harris, J. R.. Hermas in Arcadia and Other Essays, Cambridge 1896, 48, 58–9Google Scholar : , Grant, Second Century Christianity, 107–8Google Scholar.

29 , Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu, 444–5Google Scholar . Dionysius Alex, used the same older Alogi work, he believed. Corssen, P. (Monarchische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien (TV 15. 1), Leipzig 1896, 55)Google Scholar earlier expressed similar opinions. See , Bludau, Die ersten Gegner, 167Google Scholar.

31 Harnack, A., Die Gwynn'schen Cajus— und Hippolytus-Fragmente (TU 6), Leipzig 1890, 128.Google Scholar

32 Hermas in Arcadia, 48-57; but ct. Stanton, V. H., The Gospels as Historical Records. I. The Early Use of the Gospels, Cambridge 1903, 240Google Scholar and Bacon's reply in his The Fourth Gospel, 232-5. Bibliography in , Bludau, Die ersten Gegner, 164–5Google Scholar.

53 Ibid., 167; Campenhausen, Hans F. von, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen 1968, 278–9Google Scholar ; Merkel, Helmut, Die Widerspriiche zwischen den Evangelien, Tübingen 1971, 34–7Google Scholar.

34 , Bludau, Die ersten Gegner, 164–5Google Scholar . One work may be a summary or continuation of the other.

35 Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scr. Syriac, ser. 2, ci (1910), 2.

36 , Harris, Hermas in Arcadia, 48, 52–3Google Scholar : , Bludau, Die enten Gegner. 68–70Google Scholar . , Harnack (Die Owynn'ichen Fragmente, 128)Google Scholar argued that Gaius accepted the Fourth Cospel, because Hippolytus cited it against Gaius. However, Hippolytus did so because his readers accepted the Gospel and he had to defend specific chapter by chapter attacks.

37 Gaius probably labelled as ‘Cerinthian’ the following teaching in Revelation: learning from angels and visions of the millennial earthly Kingdom centred in Jerusalem (iii. is; v. 10: xx. 2-8; xxi. 2IT., 14, 17), which Christ the returning warrior Logos, will triumphantly set up (i. 16; ii. 12, 16, 18, 26-7; xii. 5; xvii. 14; xix. 11-21; cf. John i. 49; xii. 13. 15: King of Israel). For his marriage the Lamb will call the blessed to eat and drink at his supper (Rev. iii. 20; xix. 7, 9; cf. xxi. 9). The tree of life bears different fruits (xxii. 2. 14). Gaius could have attributed the following Cerinthian teachings to the Gospel of John: creation ol the world by a certain power (Logos, Wisdom) who ‘was in the beginning with God’: the descending and remaining (i. 32) Christ (the only Begotten) saw and made known his unseen Father, whom the Jews did not know: no Virgin Birth; Jesus gave up the spirit on the cross. If tradition is correct on the opposition of thejohannine Epistles to Cerinthus, then, as church members until recently (1 John ii. 19; cf. 2 John ix), his followers would retain some points of agreement.

38 Also Michael the Syrian (Chron., ed. , Chabot, i. 170)Google Scholar and Hebraeus, Bar (Chron. eccl., ed. , Abbeloos and , Lamy, i. 44)Google Scholar.

39 Jerome, P.L., xxiv. 150-6. 390, 60q. 698, 917; v. 25, 837, 982, 1034, 1613-14. See Wengst, Klaus, Haresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des erstenjohannesbriefes, Gutersloh 1976, 33Google Scholar.

40 In Parisian Codex Coislin 195; cited by Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel, London 1937, 55Google Scholar.

41 Bar-Salibi. ap. , Schmidt., Gesprächejesu, 727Google Scholar ; cf. , Michael the Syrian. Chron., i. 163Google Scholar.

42 According to Irenaeus (ap. Eusebius v. 24. 16) Polycarp continued ‘to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple ol the Lord and the other disciples’. Polycarp had been instructed and appointed a bishop ‘by the apostles in Asia’ (Irenaeus iii. 3. 4). Clement Alex. (Strom, iv. 17) called Clement of Rome ‘the apostle’. The apostles were a larger group than the Twelve (Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 1-6; xii. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 5, 13; xii. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 6; cf. Luke x. iff; Acts xiii. 1-3; 2 Cor. viii. 23; Eph. iv. 10-11; Phil. ii. 25; Col. iv. 10ff).

43 Bernard, H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John (ICC). New York 1929, 1, xlvi–xlixGoogle Scholar . John is called ‘disciple’ regularly and ‘apostle’ only rarely. See Chapman, John. Johnthe Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel. Oxford 1911, 42Google Scholar.

44 On Leucius see Schafcrdiek, K. in , Hennecke-Schneemelcher, N.T. Apocrypha, ii. 178–88Google Scholar , 215. The ‘nobler Phrygians’ claimed ‘to be inspired by Leucius’ (Pacian of Barcelona, P.L., xiii. 1053B). Apparently their views of John corresponded. ‘St John and his companions, Leucius and many others’, often opposed Cerinthus and Ebion, wrote Epiphanius (51, 6. 9) in his account ofthe Alogi. As this was dependent upon Hippolytus. probably the latter had appealed to Leucius in his dispute with the anti-Montanist Caius. Then the ‘nobler Phrygians’, Hippolytus and Epiphanius, successively cited Leucius as an authority against those who rejected thejohannine writings. As Proclus, whose 'dignilas of chaste (virginisl old age and Christian eloquence’ was noted by Tertullian (adv. Valent. 5), preceded Hippolytus and Epiphanius in opposing Gaius, Proclus was very likely the noble Montanist inspired by Leucius; only a defence of John would make a Montanist commendable. Leucius was an authority for identifying the Fourth Evangelist and virgin John of Asia; on his hypothetical account ofthe Gospel's origin, see below, p. 424.

45 Zahn, Theodor, Fonchungen xur Ceschichte der ntl. Kanons, Leipzig 1900, vi. 197ffGoogle Scholar ; cf. Schaferdiek ap. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 11. 242.

46 Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of StJohn (ICC), New York 1920, ii. 8–9Google Scholar ; Black, Matthew, ‘Hasidean-Essene Asceticism’, in Aspects du Judeo-Christianisme (Colloque de Strasbourg 23-25 April, 1964), Paris 1965, 29–30Google Scholar ; Lindijer, C. H., ‘Die Jungfrauen in der Of Fenbarung des Johannes xiv 4’, Studies in John Presented to Prof. Dr J. N. Sevenster, Leiden 1973, 29–30Google Scholar ; Ziesler, J. A., Christian Asceticism, London 1973, 94–8Google Scholar.

47 Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels, London 1930, 454.Google Scholar

48 , Hillmer, (‘The Gospel of John’, 82–4)Google Scholar notes its reference to prophets in , Hernias, Hand. 11. 16Google Scholar ; , Eusebius, dem. ev. vi. 18Google Scholar , viii. 2. 30 and Epiphanius.

49 Hall, S. G., ‘Melito's Paschal Homily and the Acts of John’. J.T.S. N.S., xvii (1966), 95–8Google Scholar ; Pollard, T. E., Johannine Christology and the Early Church, Cambridge 1976, 41Google Scholar ; Waal, C. van der, ‘The Gospel according to John and the Old Testament’, Neotestamentica, vi (1972), 31–3Google Scholar.

50 ‘The Apostles as Bearers ol the Tradition’, , Hennecke-Scheemelcher, N.T. Apocrypha, ii. 81–2.Google Scholar

51 N.T.S. viii (1961). 77–9.Google Scholar

52 Schalerdiek ap. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, ii. 189. Clement prefaces the story by calling it a ‘tradition preserved by memory’. On Origen's tradition ol Jesus’ forms see Bauer ap. Hennecke-Schneemelcher i. 434. The immaterial body would account lor his Transfiguration. Resurrection and walking on the water. But would not Encratites with Monarchian tendencies (like ‘Leucius’) be the most likely group to propagate the tradition of Christ's changeable body?

53 Even if Bonnet's chaps. 1-17 are unrelated to the lost beginning, chap. 18 opens with John's approaching Ephesus. Since the Author told of visits to cities receiving letters in Rev. i-iii, John's exile is presupposed. The Monarchian Prologue to John, which drew upon the Acts (see p. 424), tells that he ‘wrote his Gospel in Asia… after he had written the Apocalypse on … Patmos’ (Bernard, A Critical… Commentary, 1. lvii). The end of Fortunian's preface to Luke reads, ‘The Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse on the island ol Patmos, then the Gospel in Asia’ (, Eisler, The Enigma, 17).Google Scholar

54 Zahn, Th. (Introduction to the New Testament, New York 1917. iii. 178–9Google Scholar , 194, n. 6) plausibly argues that the Acts of John underlies the common account of the Gospel's origin. Muratorianum knew the Acts of Peter and the Acts ol Andrew or their traditions.

55 Texts in Klijn, A. F. J. and Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Leiden 1973, 136Google Scholar , 196, 210, 234.

56 Bernard, A Critical… Commentary, 1. lviii.

57 Gunther, J. J., St Paul's Opponents and their Background, Leiden 1973. 119.Google Scholar

58 Schälerdiek ap. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, ii. 213-14.

59 John, Gospel of, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, New York and Nashville 1962, ii. 944.Google Scholar

60 Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, See Pagels, Elaine, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, Nashville 1973, 26, 29, 41–5Google Scholar.

61 Bacon, B., ‘The Elder of Ephesus and the Elder John’, Hibbert Journal, xxvi (1927), 126Google Scholar ; cf. 118.

62 , Aland, ‘Der Montanismus’ 114.Google Scholar

63 In Codex Bezae 3 John immediately precedes Acts. The brief epistles survived partly through association with 1 John. In the Muratorian Canon 1 John is linked with the Gospel. See Katz, Peter, ‘The Johannine Epistles in the Muratorian Canon’, J.T.S. N.S., viii (1957), 273–4Google Scholar.

64 Jackson, H. L., The Problem of the Fourth Cospet, Cambridge 1915, 93–5Google Scholar . , Sanders (The Fourth Gospel, 86)Google Scholar wrote: ‘The acceptance ol the Fourth Gospel in Asia Minor is to be explained by the support which it gives to the Quartodeciman position.’ Thus, Claudius Apollinarius of Hierapolis referred to John xix. 34 and opposed those who appealed to Matt, while admitting seeming disagreement among the gospels (ap. Chron. Pasch., praef., P.G., xcii. 81 A). Richardson, C. C. ‘A New Solution to the Quartodeciman Riddle’, J.T.S. N.S., xxiv (1973), 79,Google Scholar 84) believes the Synoptic dating was originally used to support Quartodecimanism, and the newer practice used John's chronology'. This theory concurs with the tact that the Fourth Gospel was little known and understood in Asia Minor until the second hall of the second century. On the true place of origin see Gunther, J. J., ‘The Alexandrian Gospel and Letters of John’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, xli (1979), 581–603Google Scholar . For the Evangelist, ‘John’ was the Baptist, who revealed to the world the identity of the Son.