Arvel Joffi

Please excuse my ignorance, but why did the writings of John become so central to Christianity? He wasn't writing as Matthew, Mark, Luke, or (the other) John who knew Jesus; nor as Paul, who only met Jesus' disciples, but was the bigtime preacher of his day. It seems as though John simply had visions, which is not uncommon, then or now, but his visions were taken as gospel by the Christian church.

Who was this guy? Out of all the people who had visions and were proclaimed mad or evil throughout Christian and Jewish history, why wasn't John deemed a heretic?

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I'm very curious.

CX

The position that the John who wrote the gospel and possibly the epistles was the "Presbyter John" identified by Origen is largely unknown or ignored outside academic circles as is the notion that Revelation is a different John all together. Church tradition maintains that all the writings attributed to a John refer to John the disciple of Jesus.

Further the inclusion of the Apocalypse of John in the NT canon was controversial for centuries and was part of the cause for the schism between the eastern and western church.

Doctor X

It depends on how much someone's faith depends on scripture.

Revelation provides a basis for the feeling that one is special in a world going to the crapper . . . which it has for some time.

--J.D.

Arvel Joffi

That clears things up quite a bit. Thank you!

Bernard Muller

Well I am sure 1John & GJohn (most of it) were written by someone probably not even called "John", but a Gentile Christan of Asia Minor.

From one of my pages:

>>[About authorship:
What is transpired about the never named "beloved disciple":
- According to Jn13:23-25, he is seated next to Jesus at the "Last Supper", as the host would be.
- According to Jn19:26-27 written later, he has a home nearby, likely in Jerusalem.
- According to Jn21:20-24 written still later, he was expected to remain alive up to Jesus' second coming.
- According to Jn20:2-8, the companion of Peter, ("the other disciple"), the one who believed (in the resurrection), outruns Peter but allows him in the tomb first, as a Jewish priest would (not to risk defilement from a corpse).
- According to Jn18:15-16, an unidentified disciple and companion of Peter is "who was known by the high priest".
Note: outside of the "epilogue", all the mentions or allusions to the "beloved disciple" occur in Jerusalem.
What can be concluded from that?
The "beloved disciple" is unlike John the fisherman, one of the twelve, a Galilean, and likely a lower class uneducated poor.

In his 'History of the Church', Eusebius (early 4th bishop of Cesarea, Palestine) quoted Papias (the future bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor), who was probably a young man at the end of the first century:
HC, 3, 39: "And whenever anyone came who had been [let's notice the past tense] a follower [contemporary of Papias] of the presbyters [those allegedly had listened to the twelve, but are likely dead then], I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew and Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas or James or John [the fisherman and member of the twelve] or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John [this John was still alive then], disciples of the Lord, were still saying."
John the fisherman (and others like Peter), whose alleged words are reported third hand some two generations after, was dead long ago (relative to the end of the 1st century).
Polycrates, a late 2nd century Christian, wrote, as quoted by Eusebius:
HC, 3, 31 "... John, who leant back on the Lord's breast,
[as for the "beloved disciple" in Jn13:23-25]
` and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus."
Irenaeus, also a late 2nd century Christian, related in "Against Heresies, book II" that John "who had leant back on His breast" lived "til Trajan's times" (98-117 C.E.).

Consequently, there are many reasons to think John the fisherman is NOT the "beloved disciple":
- He was likely dead before the gospel was completed.
- At the time of the crucifixion, his home was in Galilee and not Jerusalem.
- His existence is implied only in the "epilogue", as part of "the sons of Zebedees". The "beloved disciple" is also appearing here, likely as one of the "two others":
Jn21:2 "Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together."
- Presbyter John, an alleged disciple and an ex-priest, still alive during Papias' early years ("what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying"), is a more likely candidate.
Notes:
a) In GJohn, there are thirty-two occurrences of "Peter", twelve of "Philip", eight of "Thomas", six of "Nathanael" (not one of the twelve), four of "Andrew" (Peter's brother), four of "Judas Iscariot", one of another "Judas", none of "John", none of "James" (John's brother).
b) In 'Revelation', the author revealed his name "John" five times (and NOT as 'disciple' or 'apostle'), but that's never done in GJohn and the Johannine epistles.
c) Presbyter John is the probable author of (most of) 'Revelation' (written around 95C.E.), as an educated Jewish ex-priest with knowledge of ancient scriptures and still alive during "the great tribulation" (Rev7:14) of emperor Domitian (93-96C.E.).

Dionysius (bishop 247-264) of Alexandria (Eusebius' History of the Church, 7, 25) argued forcefully that 'Revelation' was not written by the gospel & epistles' author:
""Therefore that he was called John, and that this book ['Revelation'] is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James ...
For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle.""
"Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they [epistles and gospel] were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse, that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression ...
I perceive [about the author of 'Revelation'], however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.
[very understandable if Greek was not his mother tongue, as for a Jew from Jerusalem (as Josephus: see "HJ-1a", 2.2)]
` It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between the writings."

Many parts of Jesus' discourses in the gospel have close similarities (themes, phraseology, style) with 1John, suggesting the epistle and (most of) the gospel (or at least the original one) were written by a same author. But then, it is very clear, in contrast of John of Revelation (very much into physical hellenized Judaism), the (anonymous) author of 1John appears to be a local Greek speaking and strictly Gentile Christian:
1John is "spiritual" (as is dubbed the gospel), in excellent Greek and has NO quotes from the Scriptures & NO Judaism (except one short reference to Cain, 3:12). Of course, there are some differences between 1John and GJohn:
- The vocabulary is more limited in 1John than in GJohn, but the repetitions of the epistle are also occurring in the gospel. And the later, covering a lot more ground, mixing narratives & discourses, commanded a larger vocabulary.
- 1John has references to some apocalyptic/Parousia times to come soon ("this is the last hour" (2:18), also 2:28, 3:2-3, 4:17), which is more than the gospel has to offer. However, that can be easily explained if 1John was written significantly earlier than GJohn: the author decided not to mention any imminent Parousia (because the "last hour" went by!).
'1John' (written earlier--see later on this page) claims there are alleged eyewitnesses then (1:1-3). However, the gospel relies on the alleged testimony of mainly one ("the beloved disciple"), thought to be the last disciple alive (according to the "epilogue"). That would set GJohn (as a whole) as written later than the epistle.
Also, the author of 1John suggested death is not expected for the believers:
1Jn2:17 NASB "The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever."
The original gospel claimed the same too (and more unambiguously), but that got altered by strategic insertions in the following versions (but not everywhere!).
The argument for a late dating of 1John comes mainly from this one and a half verse:
1Jn4:2-3a "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. ..."
It is thought to be against 2nd century Gnostics/Docetists. But that could be directed against any unbeliever or anyone who rejected Jesus the man as being Christ (and Son), as specified in an earlier verse:
1Jn2:22 "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."
and a later verse:
1Jn4:15 "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."
In these two verses, the existence of a human Jesus does not appear to have been contested. What seems to be in question is Jesus as the Christ and the Son.
Furthermore, in the following verse, the author seems rather ignorant of Docetists (if he wasn't, why give them ammunitions?):
1Jn5:20a "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding,
[no reference of Jesus the man here!]..."
Notes:
a) Ebionites, who lived among the later 1st cent. Christians, did just that (regarding Jesus of Nazareth as NOT Christ & Son), according to Eusebius:
'History of the Church', 3, 27 "They [the Ebionites] regarded Him [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary ..."
b) Written long before Docetism appeared in Christianity during the 2nd century, the following from Paul cannot be aimed against Docetists (why should 1Jn4:2?):
Ro8:3 "... God did by sending His own Son [Jesus Christ] in the likeness of sinful flesh ..."
c) Most Docetists thought Jesus (the Son) came in the appearance of a man, but not in mortal (human) flesh. Many admitted some (heavenly) physicality for Jesus' body. But one thing they would not accept is his blood. However 'blood' is not mentioned in 1Jn4:2-3a.

Consequently, I see no clear-cut reason preventing 1John to be dated earlier than the original gospel (possibly even pre-GMark), more so because the other internal evidence points to it. Furthermore, it seems the gospel was written to substantiate the claims of 1Jn1:1-4:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."

So what happened?
A Christian community in a city of Asia Minor (likely Ephesus), who uncomfortably coexisted in different groups (toning down their Christian beliefs wherever there were differences!), split in different factions, hostile to each others:
1Jn2:18b-22 "... even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."
The "1John" group, very much into Pauline/Apollosine christology, was probably fighting off Christians with Jewish Christianity or/and Ebionistic tendencies. One of the leaders of these "thrown out" Christians was possibly Cerinthus, presented in later writings as a contemporary & foe of a disciple called John in Asia Minor. Cerinthus mixed early forms of Gnosticism with elements of Jewish Christianity & Ebionism: see here for more infos. Nothing is certain about his (initial) beliefs, but Cerinthus had no pre-existent Son of God but only a heavenly "spiritual" Christ (or the Holy Ghost) entering a mere mortal Jesus (as late as the baptism, seemingly rejecting "Jesus Christ has come [was born] in the flesh" 1Jn4:2) then depart back to heaven during (or before) the suffering.
Then later, GMark came into the community: it was not what "John" had in mind in order to support his claims from Jn1:1-4, previously quoted! So the writing of the gospel, inciting, among other things, to accept Jesus as the pre-existent Son/Word of God and equal to the Father (& in complete harmony with him, of course!). No acceptance, no salvation! Other Christians (some Thomassans), coming from other groups, were invited to be "born again" (or else!):
Jn3:3-4 "... Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ..."How can a man be born when he is old ...""
Jn3:17-18 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

But could the author of the massive changes and additions (done for versions 3 to 4) be the same as the one of the original version?
I cannot answer that, but we may be looking at three different authors (accounting also for the one of the "epilogue")!

Where does that leave the "beloved disciple"?
This ex-priest may have provided (casually) some of the geographical, architectural & sociological details typical of GJohn (3:23,5:2-3,7,11:18,18:1,19:13?,17?). Also, he probably claimed to be the host of the "Last Supper" (13:23-24), a witness of the empty tomb (20:2-8) and later, the crucifixion (19:25-27,35?). Furthermore, "John" implicated him (but without clear identification) as the companion of Peter in the high priest courtyard (18:15-16).
Why did "John" invoke the "beloved disciple"?
Because presbyter John, due to his remarkable longevity and as the last (alleged) eyewitness alive, was a great Christian figure then. His death created a shock in the community:
Jn21:22-23 "Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come [second coming], ..." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die."
After his death, it was suggested the "beloved disciple" wrote (most of) the gospel:
Jn21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true."

The authorship of GJohn and the Johannine epistles was assigned to John the fisherman not earlier than 175-185, by Irenaeus]<<

And Revelation (most of it) was written by an ex-Jew & priest, called John, better know as presbyter "John", very likely the "beloved (alleged) disciple" in GJohn.

From another one of my pages:

>>The Jewish original version was written very likely (in Greek) in late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. He might have composed it in order to start an apocalyptic sect among unmarried male Jews of Israelite descent. But it is more likely the purpose of this work was to offer an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also to provide a badly needed hope for the Diaspora Jews, so they would not lose their faith. The apocalypse gave also the opportunity for our ex-priest to vent off his considerable anger against the Gentiles and, above all, Rome. The author was later known as "Presbyter John" in Asia Minor, a Christian elder/apostle based in Ephesus.
The most reliable piece of evidence about the existence of presbyter John comes from Eusebius (the influential bishop of Cesarea, Palestine, early 4th century) in his 'History of the Church', the testimony of Papias (the alleged bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor), who was probably a young man at the end of the first century.
HC, 3, 39 "And whenever anyone came who had been [let's notice the past tense] a follower [contemporary of Papias] of the presbyters [those allegedly had listened to the twelve, but are likely dead then], I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew and Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas or James or John [the fisherman and member of the twelve] or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.
[presbyter John is still alive then, but not John the fisherman, whose words (allegedly) are reported third hand some two generations after]"
Polycrates, a late 2nd century Christian, wrote:
Eusebius' History of the Church, 3, 31 "... John, who leant back on the Lord's breast,
[as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in Jn13:23-25, who died very late (21:20-23)]
` and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus."
Irenaeus, also a late 2nd century Christian, related in 'Against Heresies', book II, that John "who had leant back on His breast" lived "til Trajan's times" (98-117 C.E.).
The authorship of 'Revelation' was hotly disputed by early Christians, such as Dionysius (bishop 247-264) of Alexandria (reference: Eusebius' History of the Church, 7, 25). Dionysius argued forcefully that 'Revelation' was not written by the gospel & epistles' author:
""Therefore that he was called John, and that this book ['Revelation'] is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, ...
For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle.""
"Moreover, it can also be shown that the, diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they [epistles and gospel] were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse, that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression ...
I perceive [about the author of 'Revelation'], however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.
[very understandable if Greek was not his mother tongue, as for a Jew from Jerusalem. See "HJ-1a", Section 2.2]
` It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between the writings."
And Eusebius himself was leaning towards presbyter John as the author of 'Revelation' ('History of the Church', 3, 39).

John claimed to have experienced the apocalyptic vision (or dream) and written about it during Emperor Galba's short reign (68-69 C.E.) (as explained later).

This apocalypse was added on, updated & Christianized in about 95 C.E. and released during Emperor Domitian's persecution.
<<

Best regards, Bernard

Magus55

The John of the Gospels is the same John of Revelation. John the Baptist wrote Revelation from a vision he was given from God while in prison.

Kosh

You mean BEFORE he was beheaded, and BEFORE the alleged resurrection?

Peter Kirby

I was going to say that this is the most bizarre theory I had heard about Revelation's authorship, but it has close competition in Morozov's hyopthesis that John Chrysostom wrote it in 395 CE, which is also impossible.

Revelation 1
4 John to the seven assemblies which [are] in Asia: Grace to you and peace from [him] who is, and who was, and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits which [are] before his throne;
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in his blood,
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father: to him [be] the glory and the might to the ages of ages. Amen.
7 Behold, he comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they which have pierced him, and all the tribes of the land shall wail because of him. Yea. Amen.
8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith [the] Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
9 I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus, was in the island called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus.

As Kosh pointed out, Revelation clearly indicates that the salvific death and resurrection of Christ lie in the past, while the synoptic gospels have John the Baptist being beheaded before Jesus dies.

Also, the island of Patmos, from which John writes to existing Christian churches in Asia Minor, is identifiable as lying in the Aegean. According to Mark 6:17-29, John was imprisoned in the territory of Herod Agrippa. According to Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2, this was specifically in the fortress of Macherus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Magus55

So, you accept Josephus in that regard Peter, but nothing else? I thought Josephus was a fraud?

Peter Kirby

So, do you retract your claim that John the Baptist was the author of Revelation?

Your idea that I think "Josephus was a fraud" is another bit of nonsense that stems solely from your own mind. You obviously have never read more than bits and pieces of Josephus (or, perhaps, just a single paragraph). I have read the man the whole way through. There are things that are probable in the works of Josephus, and things that are less probable.

In this case, Mark did not know the Antiquities of Josephus, Josephus did not know the Gospel of Mark, and both agree on the fact that John was imprisoned by Herod Agrippa in Palestine. This renders the idea that John the Baptist was John of Patmos an impossibility, a contradiction to what we know.

best,
Peter Kirby