The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 31

Ihat they Rl"e by the snme author Rs that of the First Epistle, from which, Eusehiue also ~tates, rapiR.S quot.ed, giving another reason for the identification of the two Johns. 'l'hough Eusebius is really the Ruthor of the tradition of the two Johns, yet he <loee not hesitate t-0 say (' Chronicon,' Zoe. cit.) that Papias had been a hoarer of John the apostle, in accordance with the already-quoted testimony of Irenrous to tho snme effect. The other testimonies to the supposed existenco of the presbyter vauish on approach. 'l'he hypothesis that John the presbyter was the nuthor of the Apocalypse, and none other than the exile of Patmos, and who could with authority address the seven Churches of Asia, is inr.ompatible with John the apostle's residence in Asia alto- gether, and so recklessly sets aside a wide and cogent tradition. The greatest puzzle in connection with the passage is the mention of ..tl.ristion in the same breath with the elder John. Of this name we elsewhere find no other trace. Ronan and others have adopted different conjectures to get rid of the reference to these two men as disciples of the Lord. G-odet makes the suggestion that the "two other disciples" mentioned in eh. xxi. may be Aristion antl Presbyter John. Dr. Farrar and Krenke! independently make the supposition that .Aristion conceals some well-known name ; and since Polycra.tes said that at this time John and Philip were the two "great lights of A.sill," it is not impossible that .Aristion is the name by which Papias was accustomed to sprak of him. "What Papias meant to say was that, long before he wrote his book, it had been his ha.bit to gather all he could a.bout the state- ments of the apostles, whom he calls 'elders,' and among them the statements of John, from those who had seen the elders; and that he also took notes of the living 'oracles,' furnished to him directly by Aristion (who was well known to Papias's readers), and even-which is the reason why he keeps the name to the last as being the fact which he most wished to emphasize-by 'Jobn the elder; ' the same John, 6 ,rdvv, the only John of whom any one knew anything, who so long survived his brother apostles, and to whose indirect testimony Pa.pias has just referred" (lt'a.rrar, Expositor, vol. ii. 2nd series, p. 343, etc.). .Although, in the exceedingly brief extant fragments of Papias, no quotation is ma.de from John's Gospel, yet it is st.at.ed by Eusebius that Papias quoted (as Polycarp did) from the First Epistle, and likewise from Peter's Epistle, which makes it probable that he was referring to John's Gospel and Epistle, just as he referred to Mark's Gospel and Peter's Epistle. Before leaving Papias, it is incumbent to notice that Irenreus (v. 36) gives an explanation of eh. xiv. 1, "In my Father's house are many mansions,'' as one given by the presbyters of Asia Minor, in the number of which Papias occupied a c)lief place. The so-ea.lied silence of Eusebius oonceming the testimonies of more ancient writers than himself to the existence of the Gospels bas a curious bearing on this subject (see Lightfoot,Contemporary Bevuw, vol. xxvi.). It all turns on the principle adopted by Eusebius in these references. Thus, 'Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 3, uHe wishes to point out what ecclesiastical writers made use of the disputed books, and of which of them, then some (-r,11c!) of the things which ha.ve~been said about the dµo>..<Yyouµho,, and all that has been said about those which are not so." He did not for a moment aim at a complete inventory of rill that was said by the earlier writers about the 6µ0>..0-yovµho,. That was ta.ken for granted; e.g. he says nothing about Irenreus's and Origen's quotations from John. Nobody doubted the Fourth Gospel in the time of Eusebius. The fa.et that Papias quoted the First Epistle of John and the First Epistle of Peter is to the point ; and the very fact that Eusebius does not refer to citations made by Papias from the Gospel, of John goes far to prove that Eusebius knew that Pa.pias quoted it largely, • The oonclusions we draw are that his personal acquaintance with John and Poly- carp gives extra.ordinary importance to the testimony which Irenrous bears to the Gospel as well as to him, and connects the apostolic period with that in which the quotations from and admissions of John's Gospel are abundant, indubitable, and univer- sally oonceded. a. TJ.e testimony of the APOSTOLIC FATHERS. (1) PoLYOARP. Another evidence of high antiquity is given~ the sole~n quot.ation fr?m t~e Fi:st Epistle of J~hn in Polye~rp's Epist. to Phil., c. vu. The evidence for the 1dentificatton of authorship of the Epistle and Gospel is as strong as any internal evidence .can be (see sect, VII. 5. (3) a). Dr. David- eon bas strenuously disputed it by calling attention to differences of doctrine between  'l'HE GO8PEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN.