Recently we looked at the claim that Mark derived the information in his Gospel from St. Peter.
This claim dates to a first century source: a figure called "John the Presbyter," who was a disciple of Jesus.
According to some in the early Church--and according to Pope Benedict--we may have already met this mysterious figure in a surprising way.
Here's the story . . .
A John By Any Other Name
As we saw previously (CLICK HERE TO READ PART 1), John the Presbyter was a figure apparently distinct from John the Apostle.
He also goes by different names in English, since the Greek word for "presbyter"--presbuteros--can be translated "elder."
Thus sometimes we read of him as "John the Elder" or "the Presbyter John" or "the Elder John." It's all the same in Greek.
He has often been conflated with John the Apostle, for several reasons.
One is that they were both, apparently, disciples of Jesus, though the presbyter was not an apostle.
Another is that, in later years, they both apparently lived at Ephesus.
But they may be related in another way . . .
John the Presbyter and Scripture
There is some reason to think that John the Presbyter--like St. Mark--may have been one of those companions of the apostles who ended up playing a role in writing the New Testament.
You'll note that 2 John and 3 John are both addressed as being from "the Presbyter"/"the Elder":
2 John 1: " The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth . . . "
3 John 1: "The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth."
Thus St. Jerome reports:
He [John the Apostle] wrote also one Epistle which begins as follows That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life
[i.e., 1 John] which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in the church or in learning.
The other two of which the first is The elder to the elect lady and her children
[i.e., 2 John] and the other The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,
[i.e., 3 John] are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist [Lives of Illustrious Men 9].
Commening on the list of people Papias did research on, St. Jerome remarks:
It appears through this catalogue of names that the John who is placed among the disciples is not the same as the elder John whom he places after Aristion in his enumeration. This we say moreover because of the opinion mentioned above, where we record that it is declared by many that the last two epistles of John are the work not of the apostle but of the presbyter [ibid. 18]
Pope Benedict Weighs In
Over the centuries, the distinction between John the Apostle and John the Presbyter was obscured, but it has received new attention in recent years.
In Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, Pope Benedict writes:
This information is very remarkable indeed: When combined with related pieces of evidence, it suggests that in Ephesus there was something like a Johannine school, which traced its origins to Jesus’ favorite disciple himself, but in which a certain “Presbyter John” presided as the ultimate authority.
This “presbyter” John appears as the sender and author of the Second and Third Letters of John (in each case in the first verse of the first chapter) simply under the title “the presbyter” (without reference to the name John).
He is evidently not the same as the Apostle, which means that here in the canonical text we encounter expressly the mysterious figure of the presbyter.
He must have been closely connected with the Apostle; perhaps he had even been acquainted with Jesus himself.
After the death of the Apostle, he was identified wholly as the bearer of the latter’s heritage, and in the collective memory, the two figures were increasingly fused.
At any rate, there seem to be grounds for ascribing to “Presbyter John” an essential role in the definitive shaping of the Gospel [of John], though he must always have regarded himself as the trustee of the tradition he had received from the son of Zebedee.
I entirely concur with the conclusion that Peter Stuhlmacher has drawn from the above data. He holds “that the contents of the Gospel go back to the disciple whom Jesus (especially) loved. The presbyter understood himself as his transmitter and mouthpiece” (Biblische Theologie, II, p. 206). In a similar vein Stuhlmacher cites E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg to the effect that “the author of the Gospel of John is, as it were, the literary executor of the favorite disciple” (ibid., p. 207) [Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, pp. 226-227
Pope Benedict thus sees John the Presbyter as the author of 2 and 3 John and as having helped with the writing of the Gospel of John, based on the memories of John the Apostle.
Not an Act of the Magisterium
As Pope Benedict famously said in the preface to Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, the work is not an act of the Magisterium, and "everyone is free, then, to contradict me."
One might thus hold that John the Presbyter had no hand in writing the New Testament.
Or one might hold that the early Church writers are confused and that John the Presbyter is identical with John the Apostle.
New Testament Author Describes History of New Testament?
But what we have read raises the intriguing possibility that we have more than just a first century tradition regarding how Mark's Gospel was written.
We may, in fact, have a case of another New Testament author telling us about the origin of Mark's Gospel.
That wouldn't be the case if John the Presbyter had no hand in writing the New Testament. In that case, he would be merely a first century voice telling us about the origin of Mark's Gospel (which is exciting enough).
But it would be the case if Pope Benedict (and St. Jerome, and others) is correct that John the Presbyter is a distinct figure who had a hand in writing the New Testament.
And it also would be the case if John the Presbyter is identical with John the Apostle.
Either way, we would have the origin of St. Mark's Gospel revealed by one of the other authors of the New Testament.
Fascinating.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
What? Next you’ll be saying that John Kennedy is yet a third distinct John, when we all know that, prior to commanding PT 109, he ruled a kingdom in central Asia under the name Prester John.
@Howard: We have a children’s book from decades ago showing Prester John as a ruler (King?) in a country that became a British colony in Africa.
TeaPot562
I think that I’ll make the risky choice of siding with the pope.
@TeaPot Well, Prester John is basically a myth, though an entertaining one. The closest to a real Prester John was the emperor of Ethiopia.
What does this say about the origins of Revelation? Which John was that? If Presbyter John actually wrote the Gospel of John while inspired (or dictated) by the tradition of John the Apostle and the Holy Spirit, was he the one that we see in Revelation or the Apostle John? Wasn’t Revelation written after the gospel?
I think “John the presbyter” was none other than St.John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. It is not uncommon for an Apostle to refer to himself in such a manner as a mark of humility. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI himself when asked how it felt like to be Pontiff of the whole Church, replied that he thought of himself as “a simple priest”.
Catholic Encyclopedia - Epistles of Saint John: “It was of chief moment to determine that this letter is authentic, i.e., belongs to the Apostolic age, is Apostolic in its source, and is trustworthy. Among those who admit the authenticity and canonicity of the letter, some hold that its sacred writer was not John the Apostle but John the Presbyter. We have traced the tradition of the Apostolic origin of the letter back to the time of St. Irenæus.
Harnack and his followers admit that Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, assigns the authorship to St. John the Apostle; but have the hardihood to throw over all tradition, to accuse Irenæus of error in this matter, to cling to the doubtful witness of Papias, and to be utterly regardless of the patent fact that throughout three centuries no other ecclesiastical writer knows anything at all of this John the Presbyter.
The doubtful witness of Papias is saved for us by Eusebius (Church History III.39, Funk, “Patres Apostolici”, I, p. 350): “And if any one came my way who had been a follower of the elders, I enquired the sayings of the elders — what had Andrew, or what had Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John (he ti Ioannes) or Matthew or any one else of the disciples of the Lord; and what were Aristion and John the elder, the disciples of the Lord, saying?” (a te Apistion kai ho presbuteros Ioannes, oi tou kuriou mathetai legousin). Harnack insists that Eusebius read his sources thoroughly; and, on the authority of Eusebius and of Papias, postulates the existence of a disciple of the Lord named John the Elder, who was distinct from John the Apostle; and to this fictitious John the Elder assigns all the Johannine writings. (See Geschichte der Altchristliche Litteratur, II, i, 657.)
With all Catholic authors, we consider that either Eusebius alone, or Papias and Eusebius, erred, and that Irenæus and the rest of the Fathers were right, in fact we lay the blame at the door of Eusebius. As Bardenhewer (Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 540) says, Eusebius set up a straw man. There never was a John the Elder. So think Funk (Patres Apostolici, I, 354), Dr. Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography, III, 398), Hausleiter (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1896), Stilting, Guerike, and others.
Eusebius is here a special pleader. He opposes the millennium. Wrongly fancying that the Apocalypse favours the Chiliasts, he assigns it to this John the Elder and tries to rob the work of its Apostolic authority, the clumsiness of expression of Papias gives occasion to Eusebius in proof of the existence of two disciples of the Lord named John.
To be sure, Papias mentions two Johns — one among the Apostles, the other in a clause with Aristion. Both are called elders; and elders here (presbuteroi) are admitted by Eusebius to be Apostles, since he admits that Papias got information from those who had met the Apostles (substituting ton apostolon for ton presbuteron; see Church History III.39.7). Hence it is that Papias, in joining John with Aristion, speaks of John the Elder and not of Aristion the Elder; Aristion was not an elder or Apostle. The reason for joining the Aristion with John at all is that they were both witnesses of the present to Papias, whereas all the Apostles were witnesses of the past generation. Note that the second aorist (eipen) is used in regard to the group of witnesses of the past generation, since there is question of what they had said, whereas the present (legousin) is used in regard to the witnesses of the present generation, i.e. Aristion and John the Elder, since the question is what they are now saying. The Apostle John was alive in the time of Papias. He and he alone can be the elder of whom Papias speaks.
How is it, then, that Papias mentions John twice? Hausleiter conjectures that the phrase he ti Ioannes is a gloss (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1896). It is likelier that the repetition of the name of John is due to the clumsiness of expression of Papias. He does not mention all the Apostles, but only seven; though he undoubtedly means them all. His mention of John is quite natural in view of the relation in which he stood to that Apostle. After mention of the group that were gone, he names the two from whom he now receives indirect information of the Lord’s teaching; these two are the disciple Aristion and John the Apostle.”
Here is another possible explanation: 3 John, written to Gaius (bishop?), was a cover letter for the other two; 2 John, written to the Lady and the presbyters (priests of the diocese?), was a cover letter for the main letter; 1 John was the letter written to the diocese Gaius was in charge of.
This doesn’t have the support of Pope Benedict, as Jimmy shows his preference stated in his first book, nor of St. Jerome, as Jimmy quotes above. But it is an interesting idea.
I note that several commentors shifted the title to “Prester John”, with which I’m also familiar. IMO it’s another ‘ear-tickling’ tale that grew up after the Apostolic period.
Start here, if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John
Here’s another element to consider: what of the fact that Mark was also known as “John”, or “John Mark”. Acts 15:37-39 says, “Barnabas wanted to take with them also John, who was called Mark, but Paul insisted that they should not take with them someone who had deserted them at Pamphylia (see Acts 13:13) and who had not continued with them in their work. So sharp was their disagreement that they separated. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus”.
Is it possible there was not another John, but that presbyter John could be evangelist Mark?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.