Irenaeus and the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel

Lorne Zelyck

It is widely acknowledged that Irenaeus considered the Fourth Evangelist to be the Apostle John,1 yet Richard Bauckham has consistently argued that Ire- naeus distinguished John, the son of Zebedee, from John, the disciple of the Lord.2 The former is an apostle and member of the Twelve, while the latter is the aged, Beloved Disciple who authored the Fourth Gospel and was associated with Ephesus where he was buried.3 This distinction coincides with Bauck- ham’s erudite analysis of other Asiatic traditions in the second century, and it challenges the consensus view that has “commonly been assumed and some- times argued,” but is now “vigorously contested.”4 In support of the consensus view, and as a response to Bauckham, this essay will argue that Irenaeus does not make this distinction and that he identifies the Apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel, which provides legitimacy and authority to Irenaeus’s own arguments against his opponents.5

1 J.N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), 5; R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (ab 29, 29a; Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1966), 1:lxxxviii; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (London: spck, 1978), 101; M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: scm, 1989), 3; R.A. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee (Columbia, sc: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 124; E. Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 176; C.E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 96; A.J. Köstenberger and S.O. Stout, “‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle—A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” bbr 18 (2008): 209–231, esp. 223–225; B. Mutschler, “John and His Gospel in the Mirror of Irenaeus of Lyons,” in The Legacy of John (ed. T. Rasimus; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 319–343, esp. 323; D.J. Unger, trans., St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies, Book 3 (New York: Newman, 2012), 123 n. 7. 2 Bauckham first made this argument in “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” jts 44 (1993): 24–69, esp. 67–69; however, it has been reiterated in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 452–471, and The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 70–72. Bauckham’s conclusions have been followed by P. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 252–258. 3 This argument was previously made by C.F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1922), 138–142; J.J. Gunther, “Early Identifications of Authorship of the Johannine Writings,” jeh 31 (1980): 407–427, esp. 418–419. 4 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 458. 5 I have omitted a critical discussion of the sources and historical reliability of Irenaeus’s claims,

Three “Johns”

Irenaeus identifies three “Johns” in AgainstHeresies—John Mark, John the Bap- tist, and John the Apostle. It is necessary to elucidate how Irenaeus describes these individuals so that their identities are not conflated or confused.

John Mark In support of the claim that Luke faithfully transmitted Paul’s teachings, Ire- naeus notes that Luke was a constant traveling companion of Paul and then paraphrases material from Acts 15–16: “For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, ‘we came to Troas’” (Adv. Haer. 3.14.1). This is the only time John Mark is mentioned, and Irenaeus is certainly dependent on Acts 15:37 to identify this “John.”6

John the Baptist Quoting Matt 11:11 in Adv. Haer. 3.10.1, Irenaeus mentions “John the Baptist” and refers to him as “John” seven times in the chapter. Irenaeus also identifies him as “the forerunner” twice in 3.9.1 and once in 3.11.4, where he also refers to him as “John” four times. Quotations from the Gospels are attributed to “John” (the Baptist by implication) (1.3.5; 3.9.1; 3.10.2) and “John the Baptist” (4.4.3; 4.7.2; 5.17.4; 5.32.2).7 Irenaeus twice mentions the “baptism of John” (1.21.2; 3.14.3) and indicates that the “law terminated with John [the Baptist]” (4.4.2). When Irenaeus refers to “John” without an epithet, how can we be sure that this is “John” (the Baptist) and not another “John”? There are three criteria avail- able to determine that the “John” to which Irenaeus refers is “John” (the Baptist).

(1) The association of “John” with an epithetic John. In 3.10.1, Irenaeus refers to “John” three times before quoting Matt 11:11, which mentions “John the Baptist.” It is reasonable to conclude that, based on the context, Irenaeus is referring to the same person and “John” is simply an abbreviated form of “John the Baptist.”

as well as their relationship with other early Christian authors, in order to focus on the claims of Irenaeus himself, which is what Bauckham has called into question. 6 All quotations of Against Heresies are from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus (repr., Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 1994); the Greek and Latin texts are from A. Rousseau, ed., Irénée de Lyon: Contre Les Hérésies (sc 100, 153, 211, 264, 294; Paris: Cerf, 1965–1982). 7 The identity of the referent is placed in parenthesis and is based on this author’s interpreta- tion.