In the previous post, Eusebius of Caesarea’s attempt to divide out a second “Elder John” other than St. John the son of Zebedee was discussed. He confabulated this figure in order to be able to utilize early patristic testimony to St. John, son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel and First Epistle while rejecting the same testimony regarding the authorship of Revelation. This despite the fathers in question making no such distinction between two Johns. Despite St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. John’s spiritual grandson, giving the date and place of its composition, in recent times the date, in particular, has been called into question by proponents of certain eschatological schemes (primarily forms of preterism) originating in Calvinist theological…
Many common staples of modern Biblical scholarship of the 20th century are complicated edifices built on some small mention in a Patristic source or other early Christian writers. St. Jerome’s reference to an ancient tradition regarding Ezra led to a generations-long rabbit trail in Torah criticism. The existence of a sayings Gospel known as ‘Q’ has not only been hypothesized but “reconstructed” into a critical edition based on Eusebius of Caesarea stating that St. Matthew, before completing his Gospel, compiled the ‘logia‘ of Christ in an orderly way. Another of these constructs also stems from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea: “John the Elder.” In this case, however, modern scholars have not picked up on some small mention and run…
