Where was John before Patmos?

[Radagast]

Shanks evades this by claiming that Papias only mentioned one John whom he listed twice, and never spoke of two Johns, but this view requires that Papias poorly expressed himself

Not necessarily. Several people interpret Papias that way: as mentioning John twice, first in a list of apostles ("what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples"), and then in a list of witnesses who are still alive ("which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice").

 

[JohannineScholar]

The ANF collection editor Arthur Cushman McGiffert: “no other conclusion can be reached ... unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing.”

 

[Radagast]

The editor of Papias in the ANF collection, Arthur Cushman McGiffert is emphatic: “no other conclusion can be reached” other than that Papias spoke of two Johns, “unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing.”

I think he's wrong. It seems to me quite clear that Papias is speaking of one John, first in a list of apostles, and second in a list of living people. It's clearer in the original Greek, where (1) both occurrences of John are labelled "presbyter," and (2) the verb λέγουσιν clearly means (in context) something like "are still saying."

And the idea of two famous Johns both living in Ephesus at the same time is, quite frankly, a bit much to swallow (especially given the lack of evidence for two Johns). Even more bizarre is the theory that "John the Presbyter" wrote both the Gospel and the Epistles under the guidance of "John the Apostle." Kind of like the theory that Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespeare, but by someone else with the same name.

but the judgement of scholars with recognized expertise in Greek

Are you saying that there are specific linguistic complexities in the Greek passage? What are they?

In any case, my survey of the literature suggests that the "two Johns" idea is still a minority opinion -- even among "scholars with recognized expertise in Greek."

 

[JohannineScholar]

It's clearer in the original Greek, where (1) both occurrences of John are labelled "presbyter,"

Except this is disputed too, and the majority of scholars seem to favor the view that the first mentioned disciples are not being identified as the presbyters.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think he's wrong. It seems to me quite clear that Papias is speaking of one John, first in a list of apostles, and second in a list of living people. It's clearer in the original Greek, where (1) both occurrences of John are labelled "presbyter," and (2) the verb λέγουσιν clearly means (in context) something like "are still saying."

And the idea of two famous Johns both living in Ephesus at the same time is, quite frankly, a bit much to swallow (especially given the lack of evidence for two Johns). Even more bizarre is the theory that "John the Presbyter" wrote both the Gospel and the Epistles under the guidance of "John the Apostle." Kind of like the theory that Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespeare, but by someone else with the same name.



Are you saying that there are specific linguistic complexities in the Greek passage? What are they?

In any case, my survey of the literature suggests that the "two Johns" idea is still a minority opinion -- even among "scholars with recognized expertise in Greek."

This one seems pretty obvious to me, John was an Apostle, the pastor in Ephesus and in his old age couldn't perform the duties of pastor but remained an elder. He lived to be a ripe old age and the only Apostle to die of natural causes. John was all three, it just seems so obvious.

 

[JohannineScholar]

This one seems pretty obvious to me, John was an Apostle, the pastor in Ephesus and in his old age couldn't perform the duties of pastor but remained an elder. He lived to be a ripe old age and the only Apostle to die of natural causes. John was all three, it just seems so obvious.

This is merely anachronistic conjecture. No-one is going to be convinced that Papias refers to John here the second time as "the elder" because he changed his job title. John was not the "pastor" of the First Baptist Church at Ephesus, who retired and joined the "board of elders" after having been voted in by the congregation. The title of "the Elder" is recognized as a unique title denoting respect and authority when applied to John. Your view will rightly remain yours and yours alone.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is merely anachronistic conjecture. No-one is going to be convinced that Papias refers to John here the second time as "the elder" because he changed his job title. John was not the "pastor" of the First Baptist Church at Ephesus, who retired and joined the "board of elders" after having been voted in by the congregation. The title of "the Elder" is recognized as a unique title denoting respect and authority when applied to John. Your view will rightly remain yours and yours alone.

Yea well we all have opinions and we all use our own. I don't recall that Papias was the final authority for authorship of the New Testament canon and you certainly don't weigh in as an authority on the subject.

John did pastor the church at Ephesus and he did die of natural causes in Ephesus, unlike the other Apostles, an old man. Some obscure quote from a distant early church father doesn't change 2,000 years of church tradition.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Yea well we all have opinions and we all use our own.

Not all opinions are equal, however.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not all opinions are equal, however.

That is the first thing you have said that I actually agree with.

 

[Radagast]

Except this is disputed too, and the majority of scholars seem to favor the view that the first mentioned disciples are not being identified as the presbyters.

I doubt that; the Greek is unambiguous.

Most scholars think

You keep saying that. Based on my reading, I do not believe that is true.

Even assuming that presbyter = apostle here (as your point "1" above does), he would be saying: "I inquired after the words of the apostles, what Andrew or Peter ... or John said

It's not an assumption: the Greek says "presbyters" (πρεσβυτέροις ), not "apostles." Are you actually reading the Greek, or some clumsy mistranslation?

 

[JohannineScholar]

You keep saying that. Based on my reading, I do not believe that is true.

And again, on what basis do you say otherwise?

 

[mark kennedy]

And again, I've asked you on what basis you say otherwise.

Are you trying to be offensive, or are you actually interested in dialogue?

You have a nerve to ask either question.

 

[Deadworm]

Papias does not, in fact, say this. Early Church tradition is agreed that John was not martyred, but was exiled to Patmos (probably by Domitian).

Try actually reading all the Papias quotations and not just the fregments posted online. Read the section below on the death of John and the foot-noted sources.

Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

Two ancient church Fathers quote Papias on the martyrdom of James and John. The only reason for some modern scholarly skeptism is the belief that these Fathers are harmonizing Papias with Jesus' otherwise false prediction. But there is no good reason to doubt their claim to be quoting Papias. Such a prediction is consistent with Papias's distinction between what John the son of Zebedee "was saying" and what "John the Elder" "is currently saying." The 2 Johns are different and the apostle John has been martyred long before.