SLD

I have just read that Iraneaus in 180 AD is the first one to name this Gospel as John's. I'm curious though if anyone knows of other earlier discussions of this Gospel prior to 180 AD. Were there not some earlier commentaries on this Gospel and if so, what did they call it or to whom did they attribute it?

The reason I ask is that I have seen some fundies argue that John's gospel was an eyewitness account and was the first one written. If however other commentaries exist about this gospel that do not attribute it to John then I think that argument would not hold water.

SLD

Aspirin99

Justin Martyr (c. 160 CE), seems to be aware of John's logos christology, though he makes to direct quote. I've wondered if Justin wasn't a major redactor of John.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
"By declaring the Logos the first-begotten of God, our master, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin without any human mixture, we Christians say no more in this than what you pagans say of those whom you style the sons of Jove. For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign to Jove."

There are other quotes like "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Justin's First Apology.

If the work of Tatian (convert of Justin) actually existed, he allegedly harmonized the 4 gospels into a a single work. If this is true (the work is not extant), by this time it is likely that John was considered the author.

Check this out: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/

Peter Kirby

The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary).

You might be able to check out The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church in a university library or on interlibrary loan.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Aspirin99

Peter, when was the first time John's name was connected with a quote of the Gospel of John?

Peter Kirby

I don't know, but the earliest extant instances are Theodotus (c. 140-160) and Ptolemy (c. 140-160).

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Aspirin99

I had never read Theodotus, so I gave it a read just now. I don't see any reference to John as the author of a quote from the Gospel of John. Also, since he mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and he mentions "against Tatian", I'm wondering if this shouldn't be dated closer to c. 185- 190. I could be wrong, obviously, as it's a new read to me. Do you have information otherwise?

Roland

Ask your friends, if John is an eyewitness account, how come none of the quotes he ascribes to Jesus are the same as the ones in Matthew and Mark, which are also thought to be based on eyewitness accounts. Why didn't Matthew and Peter (the supposed source for Mark) think any of Jesus' amazing "I am" declarations - which basically reveal who Jesus is and what His purpose here on earth is - worthy of mention? And why do Matthew, Mark and the sources for Luke seem to remember Jesus saying the same things, while John remembers Jesus saying totally different things?

The "high Christology" of John makes it probably the least credible of the four to be either a recording of history or an eyewitness account.

S.C.Carlson

The traditional date for the writing of John is the second year of Trajan (99/100). If tradition is also correct that it was an eyewitness account, then the eyewitness must have had 60+ years to reflect on it. This period of time is consistent with the old history-of-religion school's assumption of a lengthy development period from a low Christology to a high one. However, incarnational theologies have appeared relatively quickly in analogous religious movements, so I'm suspicious of that assumption.

On the other hand, the discomfort that some may feel in these modern times over the time lag may be an impetus to push the composition of John earlier, but, as long as the witness was an eyewitness, the ancients were not so worried about it.

Stephen

Peter Kirby

You're reading a text of Clement of Alexandria (note "our Pantanaeus," Clement's teacher) which has some "extracts from Theodotus." It's not all Theodotus. In any case, you're right about there being no "reference to John as the author of a quote from he Gospel of John."

The earliest extant example is Ptolemy, then the Muratorian Canon or Irenaeus.

It would have been totally sweet if p52 were John 1:1-5 instead...but as it is, we can't be sure what the early manuscripts titled the Fourth Gospel (I bet it wasn't titled Gospel according to John--if indeed it had any title). It would also be nice if Eusebius had a quote from Papias on John--but, of course, I don't know whether Papias mentioned the Fourth Gospel.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

Martin Hengel, in The Johannine Question, makes a strong case from the extant fragments that Papias knew the gospel of John. It is worth a close read, agree or disagree.

Ben.