De Moor II:12: The Instrumental Cause of Scripture: The Amanuenses (Part 3)

Just as in the Old Testament our AUTHOR claimed the Pentateuch for Moses, so also in the New Testament he lays claim to the writings which are found in the Canon under John’s name for JOHN, and the Epistle to the Hebrews for PAUL.

Among the ἀναμφισβήτητα/undisputed writings of the Apostle JOHN, ever ascribed to him by the unanimous judgment of the orthodox Church, is his Gospel; concerning which very tardily and on account of petty reasons the Alogi heretics about the beginnings of the third Century stir up doubts, whom therefore EPIPHANIUS, in Hæresi LI, chapter III, opera, tome I, page 423, 424, calls Alogi, because they were not receiving the books of John, or that λόγον/Word, that was proclaimed by John:[1]  see LAMPE’S Prolegomena in Joannis Euangelium, book II, chapter I, pages 133-148.

Equally also, by the consent of all antiquity, the first Epistle, although the text does not have the name of the Evangelist added, was ascribed to John; see LAMPE’S Prolegomena in Joannis Euangelium, book I, chapter VII, § I, page 104; WOLF’S Prolegomena in I Johannis Epistolam in Curis philologicis et criticis, page 242.

Concerning the SECOND and THIRD EPISTLES, whether they belonged to the Apostle JOHN, we read that there was doubt in the third Century; for which, it appears in the view of some, it furnished an opportunity that the writer simply calls himself the πρεσβύτερον/ elder;[2] whence conjecture arose as to whether these Epistles were to be ascribed to another John, who is said to have been appointed as Bishop of Ephesus by the Apostle, and who is distinguished from the Apostle by the name of Elder.  Nevertheless, it is demonstrated that these two Epistles also belong to the Apostle John, 1.  from the manifest agreement of these with the first Epistle, 2.  from the more general consent of the Fathers, even of those that lived in the second Century, namely, Irenæus,[3] Clement of Alexandria,[4] and Tertullian.[5]  Neither does the title of πρεσβυτέρου/elder hinder, which both because of his age, on account of which he was venerable, and because of his authority, whereby he delighted in his office, was applicable to the Apostle, seeing that the Apostle Peter also calls himself a συμπρεσβύτερον/fellow-elder, 1 Peter 5:1.  And indeed perhaps the Apostle John was known emphatically by the name of the πρεσβυτέρου/elder throughout the Churches of Asia, to such an extent that he did not regard it as necessary to make use of any other name in the Inscription of his Epistles.  But the whole matter that is narrated concerning the other Presbyter John, whose sepulcher was shown at Ephesus, depends upon a tradition of slight credit, a tradition of only one, even Papias; but even if it be already granted, it would still not prove that these Epistles are to be ascribed to him.  Perhaps it would not be far from the truth, if we should say that the rigor, with which the Apostle teaches in these Epistle that one is to proceed against Heretics, caused some annoyance among the heretical men, and, therefore, they, the first of all, tried to render the Apostolic authority of these Epistles, acknowledged by the Church, controversial:  LAMPE’S Prolegomena in Joannis Euangelium, book I, chapter VII, § 5-9, pages 107-111; GOMARUS on 2 John, opera, part II, pages 480, 482-484; WOLF on 2 John in Curis philologicis et criticis, pages 320-322.

Finally, that the APOCALYPSE was written by the Apostle JOHN, before doubts were moved concerning this book in the third Century, α.  was even acknowledged by four eminent Doctors of the second Century, Justin Martyr,[6] Irenæus,[7] Apollonius against Montanus[8] as cited by Eusebius,[9] Theophilus to Autolycus.[10]  β.  Tertullian affirms that this was the common sentence of the Church from his time back to the first beginning of the Bishops, while it belonged to the heretic Marcion[11] to reject the Apocalypse.[12]  γ.  Neither unto anyone, than unto John, do those things better agree, which the Author of this Book attributes to himself in the Argument; who not only calls himself John five times, but also in Revelation 1:1, 2 calls himself δοῦλον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the servant of Jesus Christ, which, that the Apostles attributed to themselves with singular emphasis, the writings of Paul,[13] James,[14] Peter,[15] and Jude[16] prove.  In the same place, he says that “he bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw;” in which words he has regard to his Apostolate, and to what things he delivered to the Church, both by word, and in the rest of his writings, comparing John 1:14; 19:35; 1 John 1:1, 2.  He writes this book to the seven Churches of Asia, verse 4, which were not only the singular object of this Apostle’s care, but over which also a certain general authority was able to agree to no one except the Apostle.  Moreover, he testifies that these revelations came to him while he was dwelling on the Isle of Patmos because of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, verse 9; but, that John was banished to the isle of Patmos for the sake of the Gospel, is evident from the unanimous suffrage of the ancient Church.  Neither will I add anything concerning the title Θεολόγου/Theologian in the Inscription, which began about the fourth Century to be given preeminently to the Apostle John, and apparently about the time was added to the other words in the Inscription of this book; so that by such an epithet, whereby the Apostle John at that time was wont especially to be distinguished from all others, it might be signified that this book also was to be ascribed to the Apostle, and not to another John.

And perhaps there was no other reason why doubt arose in the third Century concerning the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse, than that heretics, cherishing impure thoughts concerning some millenarian kingdom abounding with worldly and carnal pleasures, unto this purpose abused Revelation 20; some, not being able to explain its genuine sense, denied that this book was written by the Apostle John, and feigned that it was forged under the name of John by Cerinthus,[17] or at least interpolated.  While others, acknowledging the Inscription of the book to be genuine, in which it was called ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, The Apocalypse of John, yet began doubtingly to speak about the other John, perhaps that Ephesian Presbyter:  who in the meantime were producing slighter reasons for their opinion than that they might be able to cause the weakening of the common faith/confidence of the Church.  For, 1.  insofar as John in the Apocalypse several times inserts his own name, which in his other writings he is not found so to do:  that is able to be attributed to the prophetic argument of this book, since Prophets are often found to do the same, by which so much the more confidence is obtained for their revelations and writings:  therefore, it is not able to be changed into a fault in John, that he inserted his name five times in this book, while the Prophet Daniel named himself sixty times in his book, indeed the Prophet Jeremiah named himself more than one hundred and twenty times.  2.  What things they were setting forth concerning the difference of style in the Apocalypse from the Gospel and Epistles, those things we are easily able to concede with the argument varying to such a degree.  See the Most Illustrious JOHANNES ENS[18] in his Diatribe de Librorum Novi Testamenti Canone, chapter VI, § 27-29, pages 174-176, chapter XII, § 28, 30, 32-34, pages 401, 403, 404, 406-409; and the Most Illustrious LAMPE’S Prolegomena in Joannis Euangelium, book I, chapter VII, § 17-29, pages 115-130; add BEZA’S Prolegomena in Johannis Apocalypsin; GOMAR’S explicationem capitis prioris Apocalypsos, opera, part II, pages 489-492; WOLF’S Prolegomena in Apocalypsin in Curis philologicis et criticis, pages 370-373; TWELLS’[19] Vindicias Apocalypsos apud Wolfium, Prolegomena in Apocalypsin in Curis philologicis et criticis, pages 387-429; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1486b-1488a; and what things I had suggested above in Chapter I, § 2.

[1] See, for example, John 1:1:  “In the beginning was the Word (ὁ λόγος), and the Word (ὁ λόγος) was with God, and the Word (ὁ λόγος) was God.”

[2] 2 John 1; 3 John 1.

[3] Against Heresies 1:13; 3:18.

[4] Stromata 2.

[5] The Prescription of Heretics 33.

[6] Dialogue with Trypho 81:4.

[7] Against Heresies 4:20.

[8] Apollonius of Ephesus (late second century), thoroughly versed in the history of the church at Ephesus and of the Phrygian Montanists, undertook to vindicate the claims of orthodoxy against Montanism.  His work against the Montanists, praised in its day, has been lost.  The Montanists were a second century sect; they were followers of the heretic Montanus, and were known for their ecstatic utterance in the name of the Holy Spirit.

[9] Ecclesiastical History 5:18.

[10] Theophilus (died c. 183) was bishop of Antioch.  His Apology to Autolycus is extant.  Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:24, relates that Theophilus cited John’s Apocalypse in his work Against Hermogenes.

[11] Marcion (c. 85-160) was a Gnostic heretic from Sinope, Turkey.  He was very influential in the early Church, in spite of being excommunicated.  Marcion asserted that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser demiurge, a God of law, strict justice, and wrath.  The God of the New Testament is a God of love and grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, and purely preached by Paul.  It is not surprising that Marcion rejected all of the Old Testament, and the New Testament books that speak favorably of the God of the Old Testament.  Marcion’s canon consisted of an expurgated edition of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles.

[12] Against Marcion 4:5.

[13] Romans 1:1.

[14] James 1:1.

[15] 2 Peter 1:1.

[16] Jude 1.

[17] Cerinthus (circa 100) was a heretic:  Like the Ebionites, he taught his followers to keep the Jewish law for salvation, and denied the divinity of Jesus (believing that the Christ came to Him at His baptism); like some Gnostics, he denied that the Supreme God made the world, and believed that the bodyless, spiritual Christ inhabited the man Jesus.  He also anticipated a millennium of earthly pleasures after the Second Coming but before the general resurrection.

[18] Johannes Ens (1682-1732) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht from 1720 to 1732.

[19] Leonard Twells (c. 1684-1742) was an Anglican churchman and Biblical critic and scholar.