Johannite Church ~AD 90

Good question. I know virtually nothing about the Johannite (or is it Johannine?) Church. A search in my Logos library for that first spelling found only 1 hit. On the other hand, a search for that second spelling found 452 results, though not all are necessarily references to what you're talking about.

There's some good information on the "History of John’s Church" in the article on "John, Letters of" in the Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. There's a section on "The Johannine Sect" in the Sheffield New Testament Study Guide: John. There's also a section on "The History of John’s Church" in the NIV Application Commentary volume on 1-3 John. And most of the commentaries on the Johannine epistles go into some detail about the nature of the Johannine church (I. Howard Marshall in NICNT series; Stephen Smalley in WBC; Raymond Brown in AYBC; D Moody Smith in Interpretation)

There's a book called The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times by Raymond E. Brown (Paulist Press) that gets referenced in 187 of my Logos resources. It's not available in Logos (yet), but it looks like it would be a good one to request. The only book-length treatment of the subject I've found so far in a bit of digging. The closest you'll come is that volume by him in the Anchor Yale Bible commentaries series, which is unfortunately only available with the whole set.

By the way, just because Logos publishes a book doesn't necessarily mean it will be something you'd agree with or want to read. They publish a wide range of resources to appeal to a broad spectrum of users, from Catholic to Evangelical Protestants (including some who are deeply anti-Catholic), Eastern Orthodox, some Jewish, from liberal to conservative and everywhere along that spectrum, Charismatic, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, scholarly academics who are not particularly devout in their personal spirituality, etc. Trusting someone else to do the research for you and pick things for you to read is liable to open you up to all kinds of things you might rather step away from. Develop your research skills and learn how to decide which books and articles are trustworthy and which ones aren't.

Also, not to disappoint you intentionally, but I'm certain that Logos will not be able to follow up and notify you here once anything you're asking for has been published (if it ever is, for which there's no guarantee). They make the announcements in their advertising stream, via pre-publication announcements and the like. They never post back here on the Suggestions forum, not when they've taken an idea we request and put it in their list of books to attempt to acquire publishing rights for, nor when they finally get published. Sometimes, if you're lucky, another user will notice when a new book gets published and they'll remember that someone was asking for it way back when, and they'll search and find the thread and post a follow-up comment about the newly available resource. But don't hold your breath. Keep an eye on the new stuff coming through the pipeline yourself. You can do this by subscribing to the pre-pubs RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/LogosPrepubs

Juho Cyklist said:

I would very much like to not have to search out material on my own because I'm really unsure I would just end up with unreliable material with bad research and views and opinions I would rather step away from.

So could Logos please do the job for us and look up such titles?

Given what you said about your beliefs in the other thread, this question makes it pretty clear that you don't understand where Logos stands theologically. Logos as a company is 100% Evangelical (and that means American Evangelical, not Swedish Evangelical). They've finally started to publish some Catholic materials, and they have a small number of Catholic employees, but the theology they actively promote is very far from the Catholic theology you're looking for. In fact, from what you've told about yourself, I'd say it falls clearly in your "rather stay away from" category. So you really need to learn to distinguish for yourself.

Raymond Brown is a (the?) classic.

Juho Cyklist said:

I couldn't care less about any Swedish Evangelical Church. Things don't have to be Swedish. And I'm sure the Catholics at Logos give the task of typing down the books they've selected, to others. (At least in some cases.)

While she is actually a member of the Church of Sweden, when I read her reply, all she was really saying is that the term "Evangelical" means something quite different on Continental Europe than it does in Anglo-America.  Logos, the company, has a background in the Anglo-American Evangelical movement.  Logos, the company, has been trying to reach out to users outside of Anglo-American Evangelicalism, but most of their base packages are still based on that.

What is it that you don't like about Raymond Brown?  Most people have found him to be both scholastically solid as well as fairly understandable.  His book Community of the Beloved Disciple is a standard work on John's community.

Can you be a bit clearer about what you mean by the term Johannite Church?

SDG

Ken McGuire

Kenneth McGuire said:

What is it that you don't like about Raymond Brown?  Most people have found him to be both scholastically solid as well as fairly understandable.  His book Community of the Beloved Disciple is a standard work on John's community.

The whole notion of a sectarian "Johannine community,"  and the idea that the history of such hypothetical community can be reconstructed through the text of the Fourth Gospel, are both questionable, and have received considerable challenge from such scholars as Hengel and Bauckham. 

David Ames said:

George Somsel said:

There really was no Johannine church c 90 ad since John had died in Jerusalem.  This is found in the list of Syrian feast days.  Since it is specified that he died "in Jerusalem", this means that he was dead by 70 ad.  I realize there is a legend that John lived a very long life and was located at Ephesus, but it isn't true.

 

What search string should we use to search for the age of John at death? (assume that the found hits will tell where) 

[[Question: just because lots of people died in Jerusalem in 70 why does that imply that any given person who died in Jerusalem died in 70?]]

In answer to your last question, it doesn't imply that he died in 70.  It implies that he died no later than 70. 

His age at death?  I don't know.  See

Charles, R.H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, logosres:icc-rev;ref=VolumePage.V_1,_p_xlviii;off=2141 1920 [(d) The Syriac Martyrology postulates the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee].

Dean053 said:

Kenneth McGuire said:

What is it that you don't like about Raymond Brown?  Most people have found him to be both scholastically solid as well as fairly understandable.  His book Community of the Beloved Disciple is a standard work on John's community.

The whole notion of a sectarian "Johannine community,"  and the idea that the history of such hypothetical community can be reconstructed through the text of the Fourth Gospel, are both questionable, and have received considerable challenge from such scholars as Hengel and Bauckham. 

While traditionally the fourth gospel and the 3 epistles have been ascribed to John the Apostle, I think it more likely that the true author was the shadowy John the Elder of Ephesus.  The two became confused and the apostle was substituted for the Elder.  This appears to have been well established prior to the composition of the Apocalypse since the pseudonymous author writes in the name of John the Apostle. 

ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν
who bore witness to the Word of God, even the martyrdom of Jesus Christ, which he saw.

By this time it was also becoming more important that the writings of the canon bear the imprint of either an apostle or or a companion of the apostles (Luke, Mark) which accounts for the subterfuge.

Dean053 said:

George Somsel said:

While traditionally the fourth gospel and the 3 epistles have been ascribed to John the Apostle, I think it more likely that the true author was the shadowy John the Elder of Ephesus.  The two became confused and the apostle was substituted for the Elder.  This appears to have been well established prior to the composition of the Apocalypse since the pseudonymous author writes in the name of John the Apostle. 

While I would agree that the author of the FG and the epistles was in some sense John the Elder, I would disagree that the traditional view was established prior to the time of Eusebius in the fourth century. Revelation never claims to have been written by an apostle, and John refers to himself as a prophet, and he speaks of the twelve apostles of the lamb as a group with no indication he considered himself as one of them. 

Oh, but he does.

ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν
who bore witness to the Word of God, even the martyrdom of Jesus Christ, which he saw.

He claims to have witnessed the death of Jesus Christ and, by implication, to have been the author of the fourth gospel.

What is Eusebius doing in this discussion?  He's irrelevant.

MJ. Smith said:

George Somsel said:

There really was no Johannine church c 90

There was, however, a thread of theology frequently referred to as "Johannine" e.g. Ignatius of Antioch as an early reference to the Johannine corpus. The NET Bible site has a 2 part introduction http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Johannine%20Theology,%201

Sorry to come late to the party, but my internet connection went down right in the middle of this discussion.

While there is Johannine influence, i.e., influence from the fourth gospel and epistles, there was no "John the Apostle" there to hang it on.  It would appear that the Johannine school is the creation of the shadowy "John the Elder" mentioned by Eusebius.  Thus, depending on how you choose to use the term "Johannine theology" there either is or is not such a theology depending on whether you tie it to John the Apostle.

Unix said:

I bought that one on thursday 3 days ago, waiting for the base package-package to arrive on DVD

Base packages are now 15% off. If you payed the full price, you can contact Logos and they'll refund you the difference.

Josh said:

I just watched a fantastic debate between Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hanegraaff. They debated over the date of Revelation - Hitchcock for a 95AD date and Hanegraff for a pre-70AD date. It was most professional and filled with great information. Both men did a good job, but Mark certainly stole the show.

Both are incorrect since the Apocalypse was written 132-35.

Alain Maashe said:

Who needs internal evidence (clues from Revelation itself that are matched with historical facts from the reigns of likely emperors such as   Claudius (41–54), Nero (54–68), the later years of Domitian (81–96), or the reign of Trajan (98–117) and external evidence (testimony of the church fathers) when you can randomly assign a date?

That conclusion is drawn from internal evidence in the Apocalypse.  There is no correlation to the reigns of any of the Roman Emperors since it has been incorrectly assumed that Rome is the main subject of particularly Re 13.  It is not the Roman Empire nor the Emperors who are there under consideration but rather the kingdoms of the world in general in the same fashion as Daniel discusses the kingdoms from Nineveh through Antiochus Epiphanes in the form of animals.  Chapter 14 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and Judeah-Samaria noting that the blood flowed for a distance of ~200 mi with the center in the Mt Zion.  The spread of the gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire is signified by the dimensions of the perfect cube of the New Jerusalem (like the Holy of Holies) which measures ~1500 mi on a side.  The date of 132-135 is derived from the calling of Jesus "the morning star."  This was an ascription assigned by Akiba to bar Kochba and was intended as a messianic title.  Your problem, Alain, is that you think you know much more than you really do.  You may know the traditional interpretations, but you have no understanding of the book itself (and that is not simply regarding the Apocalypse).

Josh said:

I just watched a fantastic debate between Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hanegraaff. They debated over the date of Revelation - Hitchcock for a 95AD date and Hanegraff for a pre-70AD date. It was most professional and filled with great information. Both men did a good job, but Mark certainly stole the show.

Debate on the Date of Revelation (on Vimeo):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Thanks for posting these. As a firm believer in the Neronic date, I enjoy reading and listening to these kinds of discussions. 

EDIT: redundant

George Somsel said:

Alain Maashe said:

Who needs internal evidence (clues from Revelation itself that are matched with historical facts from the reigns of likely emperors such as   Claudius (41–54), Nero (54–68), the later years of Domitian (81–96), or the reign of Trajan (98–117) and external evidence (testimony of the church fathers) when you can randomly assign a date?

 

That conclusion is drawn from internal evidence in the Apocalypse.  There is no correlation to the reigns of any of the Roman Emperors since it has been incorrectly assumed that Rome is the main subject of particularly Re 13.  It is not the Roman Empire nor the Emperors who are there under consideration but rather the kingdoms of the world in general in the same fashion as Daniel discusses the kingdoms from Nineveh through Antiochus Epiphanes in the form of animals.  Chapter 14 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and Judeah-Samaria noting that the blood flowed for a distance of ~200 mi with the center in the Mt Zion.  The spread of the gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire is signified by the dimensions of the perfect cube of the New Jerusalem (like the Holy of Holies) which measures ~1500 mi on a side.  The date of 132-135 is derived from the calling of Jesus "the morning star."  This was an ascription assigned by Akiba to bar Kochba and was intended as a messianic title.  Your problem, Alain, is that you think you know much more than you really do.  You may know the traditional interpretations, but you have no understanding of the book itself (and that is not simply regarding the Apocalypse).

George,

I do not claim to be an expert on the book of Revelation (there
is someone named George that is already making that claim). I do not claim that
my knowledge of the subject matter is only second to John’s himself.  I do not claim to be one of the few persons
alive who has the only real understanding of the book and its background.  I do not claim to know more than reputed
scholars across the conservative/liberal spectrum who have researched and written
extensively on the topic. I certainly do not dismiss their findings a single
sentence.  Actually the more I learn the
more I understand my limitations and my lack of knowledge.

However, what I have been taught and what I teach my
students is that if you go against the overwhelming consensus and the accepted body
of evidence (especially when the options are 2000 year old and have stood the
test of time), you better have solid evidence to back up your arguments.  I also tell them something that you might find
helpful: do not confuse your conclusions with evidence (unfortunately you presented a lot of the former and none of the latter).

Your link of the dating (132-135) with Akiba and bar
Kochba is so farfetched that I was looking for a punch line (I am serious). This is recognized
as an allusion to Num 24:17 (the same place where Akiba got his inspiration). It
is also well known that Num 24:17 was interpreted messianic ally well before
the 2nd century and also was included in messianic proof-texts used in pre-Christian
Judaism.

Feel free to correct me on that and show the legion of scholars
that concur with you, this might help me get acquainted with more developed arguments
than what you have presented so far

Maybe, just maybe there is a reason why experts in the field
have not embraced your view on the background and dating on Revelation. It is
not just be because they do not understand the book as well as you

Dean053 said:

Josh said:

I just watched a fantastic debate between Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hanegraaff. They debated over the date of Revelation - Hitchcock for a 95AD date and Hanegraff for a pre-70AD date. It was most professional and filled with great information. Both men did a good job, but Mark certainly stole the show.

Debate on the Date of Revelation (on Vimeo):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Thanks for posting these. As a firm believer in the Neronic date, I enjoy reading and listening to these kinds of discussions. 

No problem.

Josh said:

No problem.

Oh dear: I've heard the first lecture. Not quite what I expected. I'm not sure who to give the first round to. Hitchcock provided an outwardly impressive survey of early Christian writers, conveniently avoiding all evidence that contradicted him, and misrepresenting the evidence in places. Irenaeus was not a disciple of Polycarp. Hegesippus did not claim a Domitian banishment for John, and the claim that he did is a controverted and debatable one (with Lawlor, and more recently, Charles Hill, in favor). On the contrary, if Eusebius had such support for a late date of Revelation, he would have milked it for all it's worth, just as he did with Irenaeus; there is no evidence that anyone held a late date before Eusebius, and of course Hitchcocks fails to mention that Eusebius liked the late date because it allowed him to distinguish two Johns and thereby diminish the apostolicity of Revelation; the actual antecedent is not always the closest possible word, but in fact Hort has shown - in his work which will be released in the Classic commentaries set - that Irenaeus used the verb 'he/it was seen' of a person in a previous section! And what on earth - citing Dio Cassius as proof that John was banished in the reign of Domitian????? He didn't even mention John - he states that certain Roman nobles were banished - if indeed we even have an accurate representation of what he actually said since this part of his work is not extant and only available in an eleventh century epitome. Dio Cassius? For real, Mr. Hitchcock? And how does he manage to cite Origen and Clement in support? Has he heard of begging the question? He claims the Syriac evidence is four hundred years late, but omits to mention that Andreas refers to ancient commentators who applied Revelation to the fall of Jerusalem. And those are just what I remember off the top of my head. He didn't even acknowledge the contrary evidence of Epiphanius and the Muratorian fragment, nor did he point out that Jerome and so many of the other writers he referred to actually based their views upon Eusebius' work, so that they were not independent witnesses. 

His arguments from Polycarp's epistle to Philippians, and from the spiritual condition of the church, have been discussed before at length. Hitchcock does not mention that Laodicea was offered help from the imperial treasury of Rome but refused it as they were wealthy and would restore themselves - what clearer way of saying 'we have need of nothing'? - this rejection of imperial help of course was during the reign of Nero. There is so much more that could be said - the removal of Paul and other leaders from Asia Minor late in the reign of Nero, leaving the churches leaderless, the dating of the Nicolatian heresy given by Irenaeus, the type of heresy envisioned and how it only fits this time, and so many more arguments that I could bring up but won't. 

As for Hanegraaff, well, I don't want to be too unfair. His quotation of Revelation 1 was unexpected. He did have one or two very good points, such as that these things would 'shortly' come to pass (and again, I'm not preterist, but I recognize the force of this argument).  But it came off as not as well prepared as Hitchcock's thorough argumentation. He was very mistaken to concede the patristic writers to Hitchcock, and the early fathers certainly didn't hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary, a view which was condemned by a bishop of Rome. But their theology is ultimately irrelevant to the reliability of their historical testimony. Hanegraaf's arguments failed to convince in the end - the argument from the temple, and the argument that the fall of Jerusalem would have to have been mentioned by John if written afterwards, were misguided in my opinion. 

We should remember this isn't a futurist/preterist view. Francis Nigel Lee and Isaac Newton are two figures that come to mind who were opposed to preterism but held to the Neronic date based upon the historical evidence. 

On to part 2 I guess. 

…………cha-ching!...the wealth of information in just two posts…..now this was worth waiting for…Thanks..[;)] [:P] !!

Josh said:

Dean053 said:

Irenaeus was not a disciple of Polycarp.

I had to stop here. I'm at a loss to why you believe this. Many respected scholars report that this was probably the case.

"Through his teacher, Polycarp, Irenaeus retained a link to the first Christian generation..."

Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 742.

 

It's common to hear this, but it's based upon Irenaeus' letter to Florinus, in which he states that as a young man, he and others had the opportunity to hear Polycarp preach. Now I've heard Peter Masters preach, and Derek Prince,I listened to Art Katz and R. T. Kendall, but I wasn't a disciple of any of them. Polycarp, however, was actually a disciple of John. 

You answer this yourself - F. F. Bruce thinks it's 'possible' but not provable; yet Hitchcock presented it as fact. That alone was my point. My opinion is that Eusebius would have told us it was Hegesippus had he said that. He appeals to and quotes only Irenaeus.

The ancient writers are probably simply those who spoke of banishments at the time of Domitian in a generalized sense, such as Dio Cassius and Tertullian - if you read Eusebius carefully, he doesn't actually say that they placed John's banishment at this time.

After referring to the banishment of John in the time of Domitian, Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and no-one else. He only quotes Hegesippus to relate the story from him about Jude's grandchildren being called to appear before Domitian - not about John. And then what Hegesippus relates afterwards contradicts all historical testimony concerning the banishment of John - he claims that Domitian recalled the banished during his reign, whereas the consistent tradition concerning John is that he was recalled 'after the death of the tyrant', not during the reign of said tyrant. But since I'm hoping to write on this, I've probably already given away more than I would like ... but there is much more. If John was recalled only because the banishment decree ended with the death of the emperor, and if Hegesippus was correct in saying that Domitian himself recalled the banished, then John could not have been banished under Domitian.

Josh said:

I've been trying to follow you on this. There is a lot to think about here - especially since I'm not an expert in this. I'm confused about your last sentence. How would this falsify his banishment to Patmos by Domitian? It appears this is a battle of assumptions - and nothing more.

Hopefully I'll be clearer this time. The assumptions are not just mine but are accepted by Hitchcock, namely 1) Hegesippus is accurate and 2) the consistent historical testimony of the early Christians should be accepted.

According to Hegesippus, Domitian summoned the grandchildren of Jude the brother of Jesus from Palestine to Rome to appear before him as he was paranoid about Messianic claims. Hegesippus was from Palestine himself and his history, so far as we know, concerned the early Jerusalem church.

After Domitian finished questioning the grandchildren of Jude, Domitian is said by Hegesippus to have brought a cessation to the persecution, and to have recalled the banished.

And yet all of our early patristic sources are clear that John was not recalled from banishment until after the death of the emperor who banished him. Clement for example says that it was 'after the death of the tyrant' that John was recalled from banishment, and this contradicts what Hegesippus says concerning Domitian.

Therefore my point is that had John been banished under Domitian, he would have been recalled during Domitian's life, not after his death, at the time Hegesippus states those banished were recalled.

Tertullian, like Hegesippus, also tells us that Domitian recalled the banished.

Besides, we learn from Clement of Alexandria that some time after John settled in Ephesus, he gave a young man into the hands of a bishop for training. He came back later to find that the young man had departed and joined a band of robbers. He confronted him and the young man ran, forcing John to run after him. Is it conceivable that he could have done this at the end of the first century, when he would have been in his late eighties? Surely it is more likely this occurred sometime in the 70s of the first century, when John was in his 60s? According to Jerome, in the final days of John, he had to be carried into church because he had become decrepit. He certainly wasn't chasing robbers and climbing on horses at that age, as Clement relates he did after his return from Patmos. 

Now I better get to my homework or I'm going to have serious problems later this morning! I enjoy discussing this stuff too much.