Where was John before Patmos?

[Deadworm]

Our oldest source about John the son of Zebedee, Papias, says he and his brother James were both martyred by the Jews, presumably in Jerusalem. James was maryred around 48 AD, and so John was probably killed in this period. Jesus predicts the martyrdom of James and John in Mark 10:39 and I don't believe Jesus is a false prophet. So John the son is Zebedee is the author of neither the Gospel of John nor Revelation, contrary to later patristic tradition.

 

[mark kennedy]

Our oldest source about John the son of Zebedee, Papias, says he and his brother James were both martyred by the Jews, presumably in Jerusalem. James was maryred around 48 AD, and so John was probably killed in this period. Jesus predicts the martyrdom of James and John in Mark 10:39 and I don't believe Jesus is a false prophet. So John the son is Zebedee is the author of neither the Gospel of John nor Revelation, contrary to later patristic tradition.

I don't know where your getting your information John was the only Apostle not to die a martyrs death, and was living in Ephesus around 98 AD when he died.

 

[JohannineScholar]

I don't know where your getting your information John was the only Apostle not to die a martyrs death, and was living in Ephesus around 98 AD when he died.

He just told you where he is getting his information. So you have to address his evidence, not say 'I don't know where you're getting your information'. He told you where he got it. The gospels speak of the martyrdom of the Apostle John, Papias (the disciple of the Evangelist) spoke of the martyrdom of the Apostle John, and the early ecclesiastical calendars spoke of it. The John who died at Ephesus, the Beloved Disciple and Seer of Revelation, consequently could not have been the Apostle, the son of Zebedee.

However, Deadworm throws out the early church sources (including Papias) when he claims that the Evangelist and the Seer were two separate Johns.

 

[JohannineScholar]

He was at Ephesus.

I was asking more to see what people believe rather than to figure out where he was. A few sources place him in Rome before Patmos; that he was familiar with Asia Minor can be inferred from Revelation, but no early source explicitly places the Seer in Ephesus prior to his exile (or none that come to mind anyway).

 

[mark kennedy]

He just told you where he is getting his information. So you have to address his evidence, not say 'I don't know where you're getting your information'. He told you where he got it. The gospels speak of the martyrdom of the Apostle John, Papias (the disciple of the Evangelist) spoke of the martyrdom of the Apostle John, and the early ecclesiastical calendars spoke of it. The John who died at Ephesus, the Beloved Disciple and Seer of Revelation, consequently could not have been the Apostle, the son of Zebedee.

However, Deadworm throws out the early church sources (including Papias) when he claims that the Evangelist and the Seer were two separate Johns.

He has told me nothing, there was no source material in that statement. Let's see the quote and the context because there isn't anything in these posts indicating any such thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was asking more to see what people believe rather than to figure out where he was. A few sources place him in Rome before Patmos; that he was familiar with Asia Minor can be inferred from Revelation, but no early source explicitly places the Seer in Ephesus prior to his exile (or none that come to mind anyway).

Sources please, I would like to see the direct quotes.

 

[JohannineScholar]

He has told me nothing, there was no source material in that statement. Let's see the quote and the context because there isn't anything in these posts indicating any such thing.

He mentions Papias (fragments 5 and 6 in Holmes' edition) and Mark 10:39.

 

[mark kennedy]

He mentions Papias (fragments 5 and 6 in Holmes' edition) and Mark 10:39.

Quote it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sources please, I would like to see the direct quotes.

Investigating this question I found the following on where these supposed fragments of Papias are located:

George Hamartoulus wrote in the 9th century: "John the Apostle after he had written his Gospel suffered martyrdom, for Papias in the second book of the Logia Kyriaka says that he was put to death by Jews, thus plainly fulfilling along with his brother the prophecy of Christ regarding them, and their own confession and common agreement concerning him"

An epitome of a fifth century work by Philip of Side says: "Papias says in his second book that John the Divine and James his brother were slain by Jews" - this is however someone quoting him, saying he said Papias said this.

Both are quite late sources, and Clement said somewhere that not all the Apostles suffered martyrdom. These aren't definite quotes in my opinion, and the original works of Papias from which it is supposedly culled is lost.

I think the only strong evidence for John being martyred is Mark 10:39, but I find this ambigious, and thus not strong at all.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Two different writers cite Papias' lost work as saying that he spoke of John's martyrdom. That cannot be dismissed. The argument that they are late is specious, as it doesn't matter how late something is, if they had the work of Papias before them. Many early fragments of lost works are preserved in later writers.

Clement of Alexandria actually says that all of the twelve apostles finished their ministry before the end of Nero's reign, yet he places the Evangelist's ministry after the death of the tyrant. The obvious conclusion is that he did not identify the Evangelist with the Apostle John. There is nothing ambiguous about Mark 10:39, as has been accepted even by people who don't like what it says. If you didn't come with preconceived ideas that the John who died naturally was the Apostle John, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. The baptism and the cup are metaphors of martyrdom.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Sources please, I would like to see the direct quotes.

You'll have to do a search. It's in Tertullian and Jerome who say that John was exiled after being thrown into a vat of burning oil at Rome.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Clement said somewhere that not all the Apostles suffered martyrdom.

Yes, and he quotes the names of those who didn't suffer martyrdom. John's name is NOT included among those who weren't martyred (see Charles' commentary for the reference).

 

[mark kennedy]

Investigating this question I found the following on where these supposed fragments of Papias are located:

George Hamartoulus wrote in the 9th century: "John the Apostle after he had written his Gospel suffered martyrdom, for Papias in the second book of the Logia Kyriaka says that he was put to death by Jews, thus plainly fulfilling along with his brother the prophecy of Christ regarding them, and their own confession and common agreement concerning him"

An epitome of a fifth century work by Philip of Side says: "Papias says in his second book that John the Divine and James his brother were slain by Jews" - this is however someone quoting him, saying he said Papias said this.

Both are quite late sources, and Clement said somewhere that not all the Apostles suffered martyrdom. These aren't definite quotes in my opinion, and the original works of Papias from which it is supposedly culled is lost.

I think the only strong evidence for John being martyred is Mark 10:39, but I find this ambigious, and thus not strong at all.

Well thanks for that, I think church tradition is pretty clear that John died in old age of natural causes. He was martyred in a sense, he was boiled in oil with no harm.

It is traditionally believed that John was the youngest of the apostles and survived them. He is said to have lived to an old age, dying at Ephesus sometime after AD 98.​

An alternative account of John's death, ascribed by later Christian writers to the early second-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, claims that he was slain by the Jews. Most Johannine scholars doubt the reliability of its ascription to Papias, but a minority, including B.W. Bacon, Martin Hengel and Henry Barclay Swete, maintain that these references to Papias are credible. (John the Apostle)
​

It is a minority view that John was killed and martyred, church tradition is pretty clear on this point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You'll have to do a search. It's in Tertullian and Jerome who say that John was exiled after being thrown into a vat of burning oil at Rome.

Of course I have but I think you should have done that before challenging me. I always check the source material, I would advise you to do the same.

Yes, and he quotes the names of those who didn't suffer martyrdom. John's name is NOT included among those who weren't martyred (see Charles' commentary for the reference).

I don't think that will be necessary. If you have the quote then we have something to talk about, otherwise this looks like nothing much.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Two different writers cite Papias' lost work as saying that he spoke of John's martyrdom. That cannot be dismissed. The argument that they are late is specious, as it doesn't matter how late something is, if they had the work of Papias before them. Many early fragments of lost works are preserved in later writers.

Clement of Alexandria actually says that all of the twelve apostles finished their ministry before the end of Nero's reign, yet he places the Evangelist's ministry after the death of the tyrant. The obvious conclusion is that he did not identify the Evangelist with the Apostle John. There is nothing ambiguous about Mark 10:39, as has been accepted even by people who don't like what it says. If you didn't come with preconceived ideas that the John who died naturally was the Apostle John, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. The baptism and the cup are metaphors of martyrdom.

The problem here is George Hamartoulos explicitly said John wrote the gospel bearing his name in that fragment of Papias, so is therefore contradicting your claimed statement by Clement and Deadworm's claim that he is not the Evangelist.

Neither quote Papias in original form and we see no early Christian references to John's martyrdom - something we would expect for an Apostle no less. I find it doubtful, but an argument can certainly be raised for it. I would just think that the Church tradition of living to old age is a stronger one against it.

 

[JohannineScholar]

The problem here is George Hamartoulos explicitly said John wrote the gospel bearing his name in that fragment of Papias, so is therefore contradicting your claimed statement by Clement and Deadworm's claim that he is not the Evangelist.

Neither quote Papias in original form and we see no early Christian references to John's martyrdom - something we would expect for an Apostle no less. I find it doubtful, but an argument can certainly be raised for it. I would just think that the Church tradition is a stronger one against it.

I agree, but it's easily explainable because the two Johns came to be identified. In fact you can kind of see this in Hamartolus, that he is trying to reconcile two separate traditions by placing John's martyrdom in Trajan's reign. I still think it's more problematic to just dismiss the whole thing altogether.
Clement is earlier and still shows evidence that he distinguished the two Johns, ending the ministry of one before Nero's reign and the ministry of the other after it.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is nothing ambiguous about Mark 10:39, as has been accepted even by people who don't like what it says. If you didn't come with preconceived ideas that the John who died naturally was the Apostle John, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. The baptism and the cup are metaphors of martyrdom.

If you don't have the quotes and the sources I'm not interested. As far as Mark 10:39:

“You do not know what you are asking,” Jesus replied. “Can you drink the cup I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism I will undergo?” “We can,” they answered. “You will drink the cup that I drink, Jesus said, “and you will be baptized with the baptism I undergo. But to sit at My right or My left is not Mine to grant. (Mark 10:38-40)
​

That's pretty ambiguise compared to this:

Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.” (John 21:18-19)
​

Context matters.

 

[JohannineScholar]

we see no early Christian references to John's martyrdom - something we would expect for an Apostle no less.

I disagree there. How many early references are there to the Evangelist's late natural death? Not that many. Can you think of any? How many early references are there to Peter's martyrdom. For the Apostle, we have two canonical Gospels (Matthew and Mark), Papias, the ecclesiastical calendars, Clement of Alexandria (who doesn't mention John's name when speaking of those apostles who escaped martyrdom), the anonymous third century author of De rebaptismate (often attributed to Cyprian), and Aphrahat of Nineveh (all these in Charles). What is there for the Evangelist's peaceful death (I don't doubt his peaceful death--just trying to put the question of relative evidence in perspective).

 

[JohannineScholar]

If you don't have the quotes and the sources I'm not interested.

No problem, thank you for your interaction.

 

[mark kennedy]

No problem, thank you for your interaction.

No problem, it was fun.